Cities around the world that are reducing car access

Flinty997

I think the glass area of modern vehicles is terrible. The large US vehicles tend to have bigger windows. Mind you have to run to the other side of the pickup to see out of it.

KrisW1001

You've actually hit the point there. They windows are big, but the overall height of the vehicles means the big windows don't help you in seeing what's important when driving: the road. It's not the size of window that's important, it's the visibility out of it.

(The US regulations are different for trucks and passenger cars, incidentally)

This is a problem with all body-on-frame trucks (that's full-size pickups, and the large SUVs like Tahoes, Expeditions and Wagoneers that are built on frames). Over here we don't make BoF vehicles that you can drive on a regular driving licence.

Flinty997

European big SUVs might not be BOF but they are big enough to have a similar size issue.

But a lot regular new cars have brutal sight lines. Parents had a Astra and the C pillar made it impossible to see rear 3/4 angle. So many car reviewers complain about the sight lines in modern European cars.

Sam Russell

Taxing weight would be one way of taxing vehicles that would be environmental, rather than ridiculous CO2 on plug-in vehicles that use the plug-in to reduce CO2 without taking into account that many users do not plug the car in.

Another basis might be width, length, height, etc. Large vehicles make more profit for the manufacturer than small ones. Cars are getting bigger with each new iteration of models.

Of course, no-one wants to pay tax.

magicbastarder

my personal bugbear is unnecessary vehicle height, so would be happy to see that taxed. anything above 1.5m should accrue extra tax.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180426#Comment_121180426

Unibody cars are less tall, and that improves near sightlines from the driving seat.

If rear three-quarter visibility is your problem, use the side mirrors - that's what they're for.

Can you tell me what American-market car you're comparing the Astra with? There's only a dozen or so car (i.e., not vans or body-on-frame) models sold there that we don't get here; there are actually far more models that are available only in Europe than only in the USA, and there are no US-market-only cars of the size of the Astra (before they abandoned the segment completely, the domestic US automakers brought in product from their foreign subsidiaries to fill this part of the market).

Flinty997

I'm not comparing the astra. I'm saying it's rear quarter vision is terrible. Mirrors only see so much. Common trait on a lot new designs.

Ben D Bus

I'd heard of this before, but wear and tear on a road surface follows a 4th power law. Crazy that weight isn't already a factor in tax.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

magicbastarder

in terms of road wear, it's very hard to factor into tax fairly purely because the effect is so extreme.

my car weighs 1.4 tons, so to do the same damage as a 50 ton truck (i guess a dump truck full of rubble) it'd need to drive 1,500,000 times the distance.

in short, car drivers would very easily be able to claim it's unfair they're paying road tax based on wear and tear, when it's HGVs doing the majority of the damage.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185331#Comment_121185331

1 car vs 1 HGV is a bad comparison.

Total car kms vs total HGV kms in the country is a better one. How much damage are HGVs doing cumulatively compared to cars cumulatively in the country.

Then see what improvement might be if average car weights were reduced.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121185537#Comment_121185537

I think the HGV is going to lose that also. Despite the sheer numbers of cars.

magicbastarder

One mistake I made with my calculation is that IIRC the calculation is done on weight per axle rather than overall weight.

So take a three axle double decker bus, about 12 tons unladen. Weight per axle is about five and a half times that of my car. Based on the fourth power law, that's about 900 times the wear and tear my car causes.

Sam Russell

If they tax cars by weight, it will not be linear, just as Motor tax is not linear. CO2 goes from:

1. 131-140 is 280
2. 141-255 is 400
3. 156-170 is 600
4. 171-190 is 790
5. 191-225 is 1250
6. 226-999 is 2400

That double for 225 going to 226 - that is tough.

If the first tonne was small, then went up in 100 kg increments, and each increment was larger than the previous one.

Most cars are typically a tonne and up - but SUV EVs that have a long range (like 700 km) are 3 tonnes or more. How can that be environmental?

Flinty997

It's probably not linear (the damage to the road). A car probably isn't heavy enough to put enough hydraulic water pressure to break up surface. Whereas a truck or a bus is.

Some roads can be fine for years with car traffic. Then a bus route changes or theres construction site nearby and the road is torn up in no time.

Seth Brundle

What a plonker!

https://twitter.com/OisinOhAlmhain/status/1709103072490709033

KrisW1001

EVs are typically 30% heavier than their petrol equivalent, or 25% heavier than their diesel equivalent. Batteries are heavy, but so is an engine and transmission and cooling and fuel system, all of which are absent. Weight doesn't scale linearly with battery capacity, though, so that difference shrinks slightly as capacity increases.

There is no "three tonne" SUV on sale in Europe, electric or otherwise. The Category B driving licence limit of 3500 kg total weight (vechicle, cargo and passengers) would make anything above 2500 kg a commercial disaster before it even launched. The heaviest electric SUV, the Mercedes-Benz Maybach EQS 680, is 2700 kg empty.

Most ICE-powered family cars are now crossovers (high-riding unibody styled as "SUVs"), and come in at about 1500 kg for a five-seater Qashqai and go up from there. The Hyundai Tucson/Kia Sportages you see at every sports day or school gate are 1650 kg. Heavy cars are cheap to make, and weight is easy to hide when you've got a lot of space available - that's the attraction of crossovers for car-makers. Electrification isn't really the problem here, it's cost-cutting by car makers, who have got so good at gaming the existing CO2-based emissions rules that they can basically produce any size of vehicle and score a low official emissions figure, leaving drivers to pay the real consumption costs.

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121187176#Comment_121187176

from a fuel efficiency perspective, yes - but if the argument is to be made that motor tax is going to be weighted like that to save the roads, motorists have an easy complaint in that most road wear is caused by HGVs - and HGVs certainly aren't going to be taxed on the same exponential weight scale that private cars would be.

Flinty997

It's unclear what Motor Tax is.

It's a hybrid of govt policy on an issue say emissions but also revenue generator.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121189474#Comment_121189474

Motor Tax is not to save the roads - it is to pay for them. The Gov needs as much tax base as it can get.

Heavy SUVs do a lot a lot of damage to any unfortunate pedestrian they hit. Such a tax would be intended to reduce their weight and size.

I also have the view that EVs are not there to save the planet - they are there to save the motor industry. Unfortunately for the Germans and he Americans, the Chinese are better at making EVs. The current batch of EVs are too big (big cars are more profitable) and too heavy (because of the range demanded by purchasers resulting in heavy batteries) rather that the small cheap quadracycle type vehicles - that do not even need a divers licence and can been driven by 14 year olds in some countries. eScooters fill this requirement for the brave/foolish/poor.

The CO2 base moved motorists from petrol to diesel cars. A weight based tax would shift motorists to lighter/smaller cars.

magicbastarder

agreed, but if a weight based tax is introduced, it should be sold as a way to drive the weight of cars down, rather than a road saving measure.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121189869#Comment_121189869

It should be sold as a road safety measure and an environmental measure as a environmental matter, as heavy vehicles use more energy than light ones.

Strumms

What is damaging the environment more, a Hyundai Tuscon with hybrid emissions on average are 4.6 tonnes per year per vehicle…or a years old pox bottle rust bucket that we hear nothing of from the environmental lobby… even though their numbers are multiples of the aforementioned….their obsession with SUVs is odd ….psycho in fact.

Hybrids offers better fuel efficiency and fewer emissions than conventional cars. Lots of SUVs are hybrids…

2 of the top 5 environmentally friendly cars… SUVs..

MX-30 & ID4

Strumms

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121180659#Comment_121180659

You’d be taxing drivers some of the most fuel efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles like I just mentioned…. Seems counterproductive to make those vehicles less appealing by hitting them with extra tax.

magicbastarder

I'd be taxing them on reasons of visibility. Some cars are now taller than the average Irish male. In an urban setting, that should be discouraged. Pedestrians have less visibility because of them, and motorists have less visibility of pedestrians.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121190261#Comment_121190261

Oh for goodness sake.. talk about ass-backwards reasoning.... new SUVs are not fuel efficient because they're big. Smaller cars using the same technologies are far more efficient. But thanks to extensive component sharing, smaller cars cost nearly the same to build as big ones, but they can only sell those for a lower price, so carmakers aren't willing to make better small cars.

(Those SUVs are not even that fuel efficient... the official testing is still full of loopholes and every one is exploited).

Sam Russell

If I am in the market for a new car, I would take account of the price (which includes VRT) and the future running cost which includes motor tax, insurance, and fuel cost. Now increasing the tax element by taxing weight and perhaps drag, I would suggest some buyers might go for lower taxed cars.

magicbastarder

they don't retrofit tax though, do they? when the emissions based tax came in, they didn't apply it to cars already sold; i suspect that will not change, so a car bought now and taxed without weight considerations won't ever be taxed on weight.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121189687#Comment_121189687

All taxes generate revenue, some of them have other purposes, such as encouraging or discouraging behaviours. For example solar panels have no vat and cigarettes are taxed to the hilt.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121190261#Comment_121190261

Presumably such a change would only happen when the majority of cars are EVs or the production more sale of new fossil fuel cars has ended.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121191667#Comment_121191667

So what's the current motor tax achieving.