you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] 38 points 11 months ago (19 children)

We need to limit the size of cars that can enter our cities. Seriously.

It can also be done in an indirect way, e.g. by making smaller parking spaces and give fines to cars that exceed the shapes.

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [โ€“] 18 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    Allow them, donโ€™t ban.

    BUT make owning one so expensive and annoying nobody wants to get one.

    Extra taxes, extra costs, donโ€™t let big gas guzzlers in city centres etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [โ€“] 13 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Nah, just ban them.

    Extra Tax and Fees just makes it a poor people tax, and rich assholes will carry on as if nothing changes. A straight-up ban makes them not appear at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    This is the better option. But, if you're gonna do that, there needs to be some kind of program that allows people to sell their banned vehicle to the government for above market value so they can afford to purchase a comparable, but more suitable vehicle instead. Otherwise, you're gonna have a bunch of pissed off people with six-figure, three-ton lawn ornaments crying about how they couldn't have known their vehicle would get banned and it's now useless.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 11 months ago

    Another solution is implementing a ban that will get into effect in 10 years, when the value of such cars would be lower anyway.

    This prevents people from buying new big cars in the meantime anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 9 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Agreed, wasn't it a 'work truck' heavy vehicle tax break after the fuel crisis in the 70s that created these monstrosities?

    (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm late for work.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [โ€“] 9 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    AFAIK yes, thatโ€™s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for โ€œworkโ€ and thus some pollution laws donโ€™t apply.

    Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive โ€œSportsโ€ โ€œUtilityโ€ Vehicle was born.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [โ€“] 2 points 11 months ago*

    The solution then is to remove that loophole, by keeping the pollution laws applied there. And those who actually used such vehicles for work? Yeah, sucks, but they should complain at those car manufacturers.

    Or alternatively, we classify them as trucks instead of as cars.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 11 months ago

    Close. I believe you're referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for "heavy duty" trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of "crossover" vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a "truck."

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 11 months ago*

    You can have an income- and wealth-dependent fine.

    It could be as a % of your total income (bonus included) + wealth (including stocks, full ownership chain included).

    1.5% of income, 5% of wealth in bank account, 10% of stock value. If any of these three exceeds 300x the median of the lowest 10%'s salary (let's say that that's 10k), then it's 80% for all three. That would hit the ultra-wealthy more and so it'd be fairer.


    For a poor person earning less than โ‚ฌ10,000 a year and having โ‚ฌ1,000 in bank and no stocks, that'd be โ‚ฌ200.

    For someone earning โ‚ฌ40,000 a year, having โ‚ฌ80,000 in bank and โ‚ฌ10,000 in stocks, that'd be โ‚ฌ5,600.

    For a billionnaire who has 1 billion, let's say โ‚ฌ2,000,000 per year as "income", โ‚ฌ100,000,000 in "bank account", and the rest of 1 billion in stocks. Then they'd be paying โ‚ฌ 801.6 million.

  • source
  • parent
  • [โ€“] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Some places are taxing / fining vehicles over a certain weight. That seems like a good solution. The fine should be proportional to the offender's wealth/income though or rich people will just be able to ignore it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [โ€“] 1 point 11 months ago

    Certain weight and size, would be good, imho.

    Have a bit looser restrictions for road freight lorries and vans, but only regarding the back if they're fully covered (instead of open), and owned by actual transport companies, with logs of what they transported, and actually used for that purpose at least 40 x a year.

  • source
  • parent
  • As and American and specifically a New Yorker I absolutely despise cars and I mean all cars. Genuenly I think if any city in America, New York should be the one that bans all cars and replaces the roads with biking/pedestrian roads. The grand majority of people here dont even own a car let alone acturally use one, most drivers here are coming in from New Jersey (probrally because the New Jersey public transportation system sucks.)

    Hell I say we should bring back trams (modern European Trams) to replace the busses and expand the metro system. We dont need cars we need more options for public transportation and a greater biking infrastructure. We are so close yet so far from completely changing the image from a loud city with garbage drivers to a beautiful city with no cars.

    I know many Europeans are feeling the same so for those living in cities I encurage you to demand the same from your city governments. CARS DONT BELONG IN CITIES

  • source
  • parent