Skip to main content

The solution to “autobesity” is NOT to change car parking spaces. It’s to fix the root of the problem and get rid of these over-sized, wasteful, dangerous and unnecessary vehicles.

“More than 150 car models are now too big to fit in average car parking spaces, according to analysis conducted by Which?.”

theguardian.com/business/2023/…

#cars #cities #SUV


More than 150 car models too big for regular UK parking spaces

Fears over safety as analysis by Which? shows ‘autobesity’ epidemic means cars getting wider and longer
Sian Norris (The Guardian)
#cities #cars #SUV
in reply to Helen Czerski

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
I would just like to note that you used to be able to get a 4-adult-seater 5-door car that could reach 100km/h for highway driving and weighed 600kg empty. These behemoths weigh four times as much as a 2CV, and can all exceed the maximum speed limit by a factor of 2x to 3x. We should tax them by volume and kerb weight. Heavily!
in reply to Charlie Stross

Quixoticgeek
Quixoticgeek
• •
@cstross with speed limited replaced by inertia limits. So a heavier vehicle has to go a lot slower...
@Charlie Stross
in reply to Quixoticgeek

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@quixoticgeek I was thinking more like (a) a power-to-weight limit of 50hp/ton or equivalent, and (b) GPS speed limiters to prevent driving at speeds > 110% of the speed limit for more than about 10 seconds (reasonable overtaking time).
@Quixoticgeek
in reply to Charlie Stross

Quixoticgeek
Quixoticgeek
• •
@cstross I could live with that. Assuming we used a useful unit like the kilowatt instead of the non existent hypothetical horse ?
@Charlie Stross
in reply to Quixoticgeek

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@quixoticgeek Yep. (I used horsepower purely because it's over-familiar—about 0.74kw/hp.)
@Quixoticgeek
in reply to Charlie Stross

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•
@Charlie Stross @Helen Czerski I know in the US we have oversized vehicles because we ended up putting tighter regulations on smaller vehicles (some poorly implemented farm exception)
@Helen Czerski @Charlie Stross
in reply to Shiri Bailem

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@cstross @shiri

I love the term “Chelsea tractors”.

In our older residential section of Portland, lots of streets are only 20 feet (6 meters) wide — with parking on both sides — so we’re constantly confronted in our smart car by people in SUVs and crossovers barreling down the center of the street because they don’t want to slow down.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross
in reply to Darrel Plant

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@darrelplant @shiri Saw a (UK) news headline earlier today to the effect that more than 150 models of car/SUV on sale in the UK are now too big for standard British parking spaces in car parks/kerbside.
@Shiri Bailem @Darrel Plant
in reply to Charlie Stross

ZOP
ZOP
• •
a part of why cars are getting physically larger (besides the SUV craze started here in the US) are crash safety standards. You can’t absorb energy without giving it some space to dissipate. We’ve crammed the engine compartment about as much as it’s possible to increase interior and cargo volume. And at least here in the US people are on average a lot larger too than decades ago.
in reply to ZOP

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@zop @darrelplant @shiri You can reduce crash energy by reduce vehicle speed. There's no excuse for > 30km/h in cities or > 100km/h on motorways/autobahn between cities. Doubling the speed squares the kinetic energy.
@Shiri Bailem @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Charlie Stross

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@shiri @zop @cstross

The crash safety standards excuse is bogus anyway. Even if you take it seriously, it completely ignores the damage the vehicle causes to pedestrians, other mobile humans, property, and other vehicles. But at its heart, it’s an excuse for manufacturers to build ever-larger vehicles because they’re more profitable.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP

Charlie Stross reshared this.

in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •

that’s false for US and EU designed vehicles. There is as almost always room for improvement however pedestrian safety standards drive a huge amount of the overall car design, since about the 80s here in the US. The EU has a bunch of pedestrian safety standards as well, most of which are currently considered well ahead of the US regs, with the NHTSA in talks now to adopt refs similar the EU NCAP. We definitely have not kept pace here in the US and the statistics show it.

Unfortunately a lot of the big gas guzzlers get exempted here because they’re not in the “light passenger” category.

in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •
@zop @shiri @cstross
The idea that vehicles need to be larger for better pedestrian safety is bogus.
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •
tell that to the regs that require higher seating positions, changes to wheel well opening areas, ground clearance to bumpers etc etc etc
in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@cstross @shiri @zop
The smart has a higher seating position than most sedans.

In any case, whatever regulations are in place in the US aren’t doing a very good job protecting pedestrians, because the number of pedestrian fatalities has been increasing since about 2010, and it’s spiked since 2020.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •
have my earlier mention about EU NCAP. EU appears to be doing better and the NHTSA is looking to model that. And smart doesn’t stack up well at all in pedestrian category in NCAP’s model. Not saying that NCAP is right or wrong, but they apart to be doing a better job and overall the NHTSA and statistics agree, which is why we in the US are going to start seeing something like this “soon “
in reply to ZOP

ZOP
ZOP
• •
and part of the problem is consumers preference with no amount of regulation sort of telling ford, gm, and dodge they can’t make pickups. I do need a truck for moving equipment and hauling. Ford and Dodge make trucks for that segment, but nothing prevents soccer mom from buying one too. Our rural fire departments here also needs light/medium duty pickups for fire service, alongside the bigger traditional fire engines and tank trucks.
in reply to ZOP

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
So tell Ford, GM, etc that they can't make pickups—or at least that they have to make them as small as they used to b be for non-service vehicles. I see no problem with banning unsafe vehicle types! Maybe add much tougher, safety-oriented driving tests for large vehicles, too.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Charlie Stross

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•
@Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP @Helen Czerski or in cases where large ones are actually valid and needed? We have commercial licenses for that in the US.
@Helen Czerski @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Shiri Bailem

ZOP
ZOP
• •
we (US) absolutely should, but we can’t even get people driving RVs the size and weight of big motor coaches and those that are hauling 14k LB+ campers required to hold a CDL. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and consumers would all revolt if there was even a credible rumor of requiring 1/2 ton and up drivers to get a CDL or even some kind of extra training and endorsement. I’m in the agree category (and do have a CDL) but I’m also in the minority for pickup owners and RVers on that opinion. RV lobby isn’t as strong as it once was but regulating it would by necessity sweep in all pickup trucks too , and regulating all pickup truck drivers or large SUV drivers from the other direction becomes a political non starter. Hell the US truck drivers still whine about ELD as if it’s something new and unique to the US.
in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@zop @shiri @cstross

And there’s the SUV in the room: the automakers would “revolt” if safety rules impacted their bottom lines. Would consumers revolt? Maybe. But they’d more likely grumble and do what motorcycle riders do: some extra testing to get a certification they needed to drive the type of vehicle they want.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •
yeah but there’s a lot more SUVs in the room than motorcycles, with a lot more money from the lobbyists. Motorcyclists in the US are a bit more … maybe passionate is the word … as well. Not enough to matter by voting or money so it’s a lot easier to enact legislation against them (us really, I also hold a motorcycle endorsement). And it’s a lot harder to enact legislation for us too (just look at filtering and lane splitting laws. Proven safer, etc, but a very very very tough sell. And the ugliness from other motorists when we do legally use that safety privilege, getting to see it all first hand in my state)
in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@cstross @zop @shiri

Lane-splitting isn’t going to be made any “safer” by wider vehicles taking up lanes that are the same width.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •
there’s also the knock on effect/resort of licensing in the US. It’s state by state. MT can’t even keep up with normal licensing. And CDL? You’re two-three months out to sit in front of a computer for the knowledge test so you can even start behind the wheel training. It’s a little worse than usual right now because of a big change coming in November but it’s never less than 1-2 months to get into a DMV in Montana.
in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •
@shiri @zop @cstross
I don’t think driver licensing (and there’d be no need for a full CDL) is the answer to getting monstrosities off the road anyway. Something more like an annual fee based on the square of the weight of the vehicle.
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •

most US states already do vehicle registration based on a tax value and weight category, some include age (older gets cheaper even if value doesn’t decrease). And for commercial vehicles universally it’s almost entirely based on the capacity. F/ex Same tandem semi truck can be registered for 60-120k lbs (without a tag axle though might not be able to legally haul 120k). A 350/3500 truck can be registered similarly - but if your registration exceeds 24k or 25k you’re going to have to have commercial vehicle insurance.

It’s probably a lot less of a live wire politically to enact it that way in a lot of states, almost certainly could pass in blue states, but the red states would deny it on principal of taxation is bad. (Hence why MT Governor gave back income and property tax rather than using the surplus to fix anything like the underfunded DMV or school lunch programs, or on and on)

in reply to ZOP

ZOP
ZOP
• •
so yeah, that’s a much more likely to succeed (and really good arguments for it) method. They take more space, more wear and tear on roads etc.
in reply to Charlie Stross

ZOP
ZOP
• •
Unfortunately in politics the only thing that matters is money. And the US auto industry has a looooot of money. Hell the underlying reason that the NHTSA is looking again at pedestrian safety stagers almost certainly goes back to medical and automobile insurance, not the dead bodies.
in reply to ZOP

tudor
tudor
• •

@zop @shiri @darrelplant @cstross

Here (hungary) those trucks are commercial vehicles, having different (and cheaper) taxes, but using them means a lot of paperwork.

If that soccermom has to fill out a form for every trip and has to have a fence separating the back seats from the front she will choose another vehicle.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to tudor

ZOP
ZOP
• •
which in the US to get that kind of law or regulation requires consensus from politicians. Politicians which mostly are beholden to big corporate donors more so than voters. Politics in the US is mostly a money game. Oil, gas, and coal still hold outsize leverage because of money even though they employ very few people (McDonald’s in the us employs more people than the coal industry in the us) - the politicians aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them and their PACs
in reply to ZOP

Shiri Bailem
Shiri Bailem
•
@ZOP @Helen Czerski @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @tudor this, this right here, and the moment any such talk gets traction there will be a massive propaganda campaign convincing people that it means a dozen different horrible things and that "if you love 'merica you'll stop it"
@Helen Czerski @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP @tudor
in reply to Shiri Bailem

tudor
tudor
• •

@shiri @cstross @darrelplant @zop

Oh no doubts that the people of the US are the makers of their fate. My only concern that there are people there I care about.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to ZOP

ZOP
ZOP
• •
and really I agree overall cars are ridiculously large. Just trying to bring some context about the many factors causing it. Consumer preferences, corporate profit margins, emissions and safety standards, crash ratings (which aren’t necessarily the same thing as the standards…you can have a compliant car but it’s not going to attract the buyers looking for ratings, which some car brands do target)
in reply to ZOP

Michael Gemar
Michael Gemar
• •
@zop @darrelplant @shiri @cstross If pedestrian safety were a priority it would be illegal to have non-commercial vehicles with ridiculously high hoods that limit the view in the immediate front of the vehicle, and push pedestrians under the vehicle when hit, instead of onto the hood.
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Michael Gemar

ZOP
ZOP
• •
which is part of the problem, most of these standards do not apply outside of the “middle size” type categories. The bigger growing Full size SUV segments currently have rubbish standards there, and pickup trucks are in totally different standards. I’m betting that in future model years that’s going to be changing, but there’s competing problems there too. Can’t hardly tell ford they can no longer produce the F series.
in reply to Michael Gemar

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@shiri @zop @cstross @michaelgemar

“The War on Cars” interview with former Jalopnik Editor Bob Sorokanich

Sarah: And there is the reality that when the hood is five or six feet tall, it doesn't matter if there's a crumple zone on it because you're getting crushed under the wheels of that vehicle after being knocked down.

thewaroncars.org/2023/08/01/ex…

Bob Sorokanich: There's one other aspect here that I think is a little less well understood. Modern vehicles have to be designed for pedestrian impact safety. And so what you do is you have an airspace between the exterior nose of the vehicle and the mechanical stuff underneath, and that's your crumple zone. So if, you know, God forbid, you do hit a pedestrian, the front bodywork deforms to absorb that impact so that it's less energy transferred to the human body. And this is--this is a very nuts and bolts part of car design, but it is what automakers point to whenever they get criticized for making vehicles that are, you know, bigger and bluffer and less aerodynamic, is that they have to engineer in that crumple zone space for-not only for, you know, regular impact testing, but also for pedestrian impact safety. And that's why a lot of cars- you know, you look at passenger cars from the '90s, and they all had these very shrink wrapped sort of soap bar-shaped noses for better aerodynamics. And then the pedestrian rules came in in the early 2000s, and all of a sudden everything got sort of bluff and boxy in the front end. But there is also a fashion side to that. Sarah: And there is the reality that when the hood is five or six feet tall, it doesn't matter if there's a crumple zone on it because you're getting crushed under the wheels of that vehicle after being knocked down. Aaron: Or you're getting hit in the chest and the head.

EXTRA: Inside Automotive Journalism with Bob Sorokanich

The War on Cars
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Michael Gemar @ZOP
in reply to ZOP

Peaceful Assembly Robot
Peaceful Assembly Robot
• •

@zop @shiri @darrelplant @cstross

The fact that "light passenger" doesn't include full size pickup trucks or SUVs *is* the problem!
It's cheaper for vendors to build because regulations are laxer, but because they are bigger, they look more valuable to the buyer, hence driving the entire industry away from reasonable sized, efficient, vehicles.

Jam them into the same rules framework and it'll only take s few years to work itself out! (But vehicle industry and shills will moan.)

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Charlie Stross

ZOP
ZOP
• •

it’s not just that though. There are a lot of factors driving vehicle size up. One odd obviously that people want more comfort. But there’s factors outside of that too… Look at the ‘84 model year for F series (using this because I own one) - A/C was technically an option but it was garbage. No room for the dash ducting. No ABS, no air bags, no emissions systems. Many options like cruise control have gotten way smaller (like in 84 it was a vacuum or electric service system that pulled the throttle) but we’ve added so many things as standard. The A pillars, dash, and other areas on newer cars, like the steering wheel are all taking up much larger volumes for air bags, HVAC, speakers, and other safety systems (like camera systems for stopped vehicle/pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise).

The new emissions systems are huge, even in gasoline vehicles. They take up GOBS of space. The Vapor recovery canister on a Honda CRZ looks like a whole extra fuel tank, and that’s a little compact hatchback. In diesels the DPF and NAC catalysts take up even more space. The noise level of older vehicles is also generally unacceptable to current buyers, and current laws, so there’s a large amount of space given up to mufflers and intake baffling systems. And yes decreasing engine displacement can reduce the needs fit those things.

EU market is obviously vastly different for highway/freeway speeds than US given the larger distances involved (100km/h is probably acceptable lower limit though, general is interstate system is largely ~120km/h now - 75MPH), and 30km/h (~19MPH) in city isn’t going to fly with the driving public in cities in the US.

Unfortunately because of the size of the US market, the costs associated with developing the tooling for cars, it’s driving other markets too.

in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •
@zop @cstross @shiri
I’ve got AC in my smart. No cruise control, but there were aftermarket addons, they’re electronic and don’t take up that much room. I live in Oregon, so it complies with US emissions. Not sure why we’re talking about EU standards.
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

ZOP
ZOP
• •
because @cstross is a brit. And my reply was on his comment about UK models. Which yeah yeah I know brexit.
@Charlie Stross
in reply to ZOP

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@zop @darrelplant @shiri The UK auto industry will run on EU standards indefinitely if it wants to keep exporting vehicles into the EU. (And before Brexit the UK was the EU's second largest car manufacturer, although it was mostly foreign-owned marques like Toyota).
@Shiri Bailem @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@darrelplant @zop @shiri Because I'm in the UK and we run on EU standards and anyway we outnumber you USAns by 5:3.
@Shiri Bailem @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Charlie Stross

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •
@cstross @shiri @zop
Sorry, I was just responding to the US regs portion of that statement. I drive an EU -made car!
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
in reply to Landa :graz:

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@Landa @zop @darrelplant @shiri Also, most US cities aren't going to be viable by the end of this century due to climate change. They'll need rebuilding. (Ditto, to a smaller extent, in Europe.) Current vehicle preferences shouldn't be allowed to drive policy.
@Shiri Bailem @Darrel Plant @ZOP @Landa :graz:
in reply to Charlie Stross

Landa :graz:
Landa :graz:
• •
@cstross @zop @darrelplant @shiri fortunately that’s gaining momentum here (if agonizingly slow). Seems like unexpected flash floods in your living room are an effective way to focus the mind.
@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Charlie Stross

Dan Thornton
Dan Thornton
• •

@cstross
I totally agree with urban speed limits, although 30kmh = 18mph, which is a bit of a problem when it's at the top end of 1st gear and below 2nd gear in manual cars...

On motorways/autbahns, speed isn't the big cause of incidents - it's other factors (tailgaiting being the big one)

But definitely in favour of smaller, lighter cars - not only are they better environmentally, they're also more fun to drive.

@Charlie Stross
in reply to Dan Thornton

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
Firstly, gears are going away with the shift to EVs. Secondly, driving on the public highways should absolutely NOT be about fun, it should be about safety! "Fun" implies far too much unwelcome excitement at the expense of other people's safety from harm—cyclists, pedestrians, the disabled, other motor vehicles. Keep "fun" to race tracks and segregated safe spaces, plz.
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Charlie Stross

Tubemeister
Tubemeister
• •

@cstross @badgergravling There's a lot more to the concept of "fun" than "hooning around" as you appear to be thinking.

I'm sure the tourism industry would have some thoughts about not driving for "fun"...

@Charlie Stross @Dan Thornton
in reply to Tubemeister

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@Tubemeister @badgergravling Hooning around is, alas, how most people have "fun" when driving. Yes, I've owned small cars, like a 1970s Peugot 104 and a 1980s Fiat Uno. (And for 6 months, memorably, a tuned-up Mk 1 Ford XR2.)
@Tubemeister @Dan Thornton
in reply to Charlie Stross

Tubemeister
Tubemeister
• •

@cstross Did the XR2 end up on its roof? ;-)

Granted the hooning is the most visible part, and as usual what's visible immediately translates into "most people" in the public discourse.

Which gets a bit tedious if you're part of the group being targeted but do actually know how not to be an idiot and behave yourself in public while having fun.

(It's even worse for motorcycles, more often than not that's treated as a spherical group of uniform density, no nuance needed just ban 'em all.)

@Charlie Stross
in reply to Tubemeister

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
no, but it ended up in a ditch with a bent steering rack, twice in nine months! Best adjective for that model was "frisky". (A police force that bought a bunch ended up writing half of them off within a year.)
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Charlie Stross

Tubemeister
Tubemeister
• •
@cstross I'll bet. They're slightly before my time but even I know those things were legendary for their ability to climb trees and hedges in all kinds of exciting and unintentional ways.
@Charlie Stross
in reply to Charlie Stross

Dan Thornton
Dan Thornton
• •

@cstross
That's cobblers, for one simple reason.

Pubs.

Drinking isn't productive, it's fun. So why don't we ban it? Alcohol also kills...

You can have fun at the speed limit in an open top convertible, for example.

Or on a nice winding road in the countryside with decent scenery.

Also - race tracks are being closed due to NImbys, and track days are limited for the same reason.

(Written as a pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist and motorist with advanced training on bikes and in cars)

@Charlie Stross
in reply to Dan Thornton

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@badgergravling The reasons we don't ban alcohol are (a) it was tried, the results were worse (see any history of Prohibition in the USA), (b) we *do* ban other drugs of abuse with exactly that justification (and see (a), for a repeat), and (c) alcoholism doesn't directly kill uninvolved third parties: bad driving very definitely does.
@Dan Thornton
in reply to Charlie Stross

Dan Thornton
Dan Thornton
• •

@cstross
You appear to have ignored the fact it's perfectly fun to cruise around in a car, within the speed limit, away from unvinvolved third parties, as it undermines purely basing road safety on calculations of kinetic energy.

I own a classic motorcycle. It can't reach the national speed limit. But it's small, and fun to pootle around on.

And the biggest risk when riding it is inattentive drivers who have safely switched off at the speed limit or below...

@Charlie Stross
in reply to Dan Thornton

ZOP
ZOP
• •
the gears are where they are because the road speeds are where they are. One follows the other. If the road speeds were legislated differently we’d see different heating in manual transmission vehicles. Though in the US you can’t really find manual transmissions outside of commercial/vocational vehicles.
in reply to ZOP

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •
@zop @badgergravling And as noted, it's going to be illegal to sell internal combustion vehicles in the UK (and most of the EU) from 2030, and EVs generally *don't need* (or have) gears.
@ZOP @Dan Thornton
in reply to Charlie Stross

Peaceful Assembly Robot
Peaceful Assembly Robot
• •

@cstross @zop @darrelplant @shiri
I'd love to see the numbers on "lifetime lost due to slow freeway travel speeds" versus "lifetime lost due to freeway accidents."

It might be the numbers actually say 15 kmph in cities and 150 kmph on freeways -- I have no good intuition for the magnitudes!

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to Peaceful Assembly Robot

Peaceful Assembly Robot
Peaceful Assembly Robot
• •

@cstross @zop @darrelplant @shiri

I looked up the numbers:
1.37 deaths per 100 million miles traveled.
One death might average 500,000 hours of lifetime.
Doing the math, if we assume 100 kmph current average speed, we'd come out ahead up to about 130 kmph. (US statistics, hand wavey, assuming squared accident/speed relation)

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @Darrel Plant @ZOP
in reply to ZOP

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@cstross @zop @shiri

I’m 3 inches taller than the average USian man and (regrettably) 250 pounds (113 kilos). Positively Trumpian is girth. I fit my smart car very comfortably. We’ve had it for 15 years. In that time, I’ve been hit by 2 hit-and-run drivers: once in the back end (while I was stopped at a light); the other t-boned me on the passenger side after running a red. We’ve hit a deer. Still driving.

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @ZOP
Unknown parent

Darrel Plant
Darrel Plant
• •

@shiri @PJ_Evans @cstross @zop

Yeah, I’m sure the extra $3 is a deterrent to buying a 5-ton vehicle instead of a 3-ton vehicle.

txdmv.gov/sites/default/files/…

@Shiri Bailem @Charlie Stross @P J Evans has moved to mas.to @ZOP
in reply to Darrel Plant

Charlie Stross
Charlie Stross
• •

Yeah, I was thinking more along the lines of "for four wheels the first 600kg is free; thereafter, you pay an extra $10,000/year per ton, unless you can prove it's a commercial goods vehicle or emergency service vehicle (ambulance/fire engine or similar)".

Want to drive a Ford F250 or a Hummer or an Escallade? That'll be $20-30K a year in tax.

This entry was edited (1 year ago)
⇧