The government is taking aim at big SUVs and trucks.
  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    106·
    2 months ago

    This is potentially good news, but we also need to fix the mpg exemption for trucks and SUVs if we want substantive change.

    • bluGill@fedia.io
      51·
      2 months ago

      I have long thought that if it is a truck/SUV it is for use in situations where you don’t care about dents and paint scratches and thus those are not factors in the value. Dealers and car rental places would quickly figure out that they cannot legally look for such things, but customers will find a reason to buy a different one and so they would stop leasing or renting trucks/SUVs. They may still lease/rent truck/SUV shaped objects, but they will count as light cars for MPG purposes and so cost a lot more.

      • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        9·
        2 months ago

        Other countries can be good examples of policy that functions well. First and foremost, they should be included in the average fleet mpg rating for vehicle manufacturers. This is because they are a part of the fleet of vehicles produced and contribute a good sized portion of the greenhouse gasses emitted from vehicles. They are also one of the biggest number of vehicles sold so they shouldn’t be exceptional.

        I like your idea but I feel it is too in the weeds for simple policy.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          3·
          2 months ago

          The idea is trucks used for work will by nature need more fuel, but they should not be used where a more efficient car would work

          • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.worldEnglish
            4·
            2 months ago

            Effective policy would drive the truck engines and size to be more efficient, because they can but do not. They aren’t because of the exemption. Plenty of trucks globally are significantly smaller than ours and get the jobs done. Generally I agree a more efficient car is likely ideal and should be policy enforced.

  • thesohoriots@lemmy.worldEnglish
    48·
    2 months ago

    Ban the crew cab and force the trucks to be used as trucks, not minivan/SUV substitutes. Suddenly a $60k+ pavement princess used for hauling a recliner once a year isn’t as appealing.

    • Thadrax@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 months ago

      I’d rather force safety requirements on all cars. Like limiting blind spots at the front and everywhere else, limiting speeds of vehicles above certain weights, increasing license requirements for vehicles that have higher safety impact etc.

      • MetaCubed@lemmy.worldEnglish
        27·
        2 months ago

        Well… Back when a truck wasnt $60+k… Yes thats exactly what people did. They had a truck that guzzled gas and provided the bed space or towing capacity they needed for work, and a daily driver for other things.

        From the last time I saw this ‘debate’… ~30% of truck owners use the bed once a year or less, ~75% of owners tow once a year or less, and ~70% go offroad once a year or less.

        Now, obviously there are applications where a truck is needed. That can’t be denied… But there are so many applications here that use massive fucking trucks where another country would use a sprinter van or similar vehicle for the exact same application.

        • EddoWagt@feddit.nlEnglish
          41·
          2 months ago

          Now, obviously there are applications where a truck is needed. That can’t be denied…

          Pickup trucks? Not sure why that couldn’t be denied, as the rest of the world don’t really use them and if they do they’re a quarter of the size

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
          111·
          2 months ago

          You are probably referring a 2013 phone survey of 1200 individuals which purposely split the difference between using the bed and towing making them mutually exclusive. When you didn’t treat them mutually exclusive showed something like 60% of owners used it or lent it out for use at least a few times a year. Or a 2018 report by a trade group axios which didn’t release data, methodology, or anything. It was released to auto trade folks but because of copyright none of the data was released. Just regurgitated media referencing each other.

          If you would like to actually link a peer reviewed study on truck use with public data I’m happy to reconsider my position. But I don’t believe that data exists. But again, my position is completely open if something has changed there.

          1/2 ton v8 trucks start at 35, 42 nicely configured. Not everyone is buying lariats.

      • thesohoriots@lemmy.worldEnglish
        131·
        2 months ago

        Unless your truck has an 8-foot bed for work, which would actually be longer than the front portion seating a family and therefore useful, it’s a silly waste of money. The point of a truck is hauling things, not people.

        • frezik@midwest.socialEnglish
          23·
          2 months ago

          Fifth wheels do have a place. If you’ve never heard of them, then you should probably back off on strong opinions here.

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
          313·
          2 months ago

          Oh I guess workers don’t tow with them either. It’s insane how you folks invent these artificial restrictions and rules.

          You would rather create extra waste than admit folks use them as both in some weird pyrrhic political win.

      • meowMix2525@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        2 months ago

        If you’re required to have a truck to work you should probably be using one owned by your employer or written off as a business expense if you’re self-employed.

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
          15·
          2 months ago

          Well I’m happy you live in a reality where that’s the case. Then ignore that folks do work outside their employment.

        • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
          15·
          2 months ago

          Does a trailer tow for me? Cool enough, that might actually be true soon. They have some fancy ev trailer boosters coming out and being developed.

          • Krzd@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            But why would it have to? You already need a car to transport your family, just use that?

            • IsThisAnAI@lemmy.worldEnglish
              16·
              2 months ago

              You realize most cars, if they are rated for towing can only tow 1500lbs right? Even full size SUVs typically do 5500. I regularly tow about 9000lbs.

  • s38b35M5@lemmy.worldEnglish
    44·
    2 months ago

    Having lived out of the US for two years, returning is a shock to the system with the size and exhaust volume of the vehicles on the road. I am skeptical that these changes can get through the gauntlet of lobbyists, however.

    • yeather@lemmy.caEnglish
      11·
      2 months ago

      Car manufacturers want these changes, mostly because they can sell their cheaper cars here at a high price since the US market is so used to inflated vehicle prices. Cheaper to make, more profit on the sell.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.caEnglish
    27·
    2 months ago

    Wow. This is unbelievable.

    Also, this is probably going to be a new talking point in the election campaign:

    “They came for your guns, they came for your cats, now they’re coming for your trucks!!!”

    • Excrubulent@slrpnk.netEnglish
      20·
      2 months ago

      I’m pretty sure it already is. That’s why you have assholes rolling coal to trigger the libs.

  • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    2 months ago

    This week, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) stunned safety advocates by proposing new vehicle rules that it says will help reduce pedestrian deaths in America. The new rules appear aimed directly at the trend of increasingly massive SUVs and trucks, which have been shown to be more deadly to pedestrians than smaller and midsize vehicles.

    This will be really cool if it survives the SCOTUS war on the administrative state.

  • M0oP0o@mander.xyzEnglish
    192·
    2 months ago

    They still are banning small trucks, so I think this is not the US taking aim at truck bloat but just a new tax.

    Bring back tiny neat trucks!

    • boonhet@lemm.eeEnglish
      8·
      2 months ago

      Hell, in the US probably just bringing back trucks the size of a 90s Hilux would be an improvement. It’s not like the payload is any smaller than the big hunks.

      But I suppose that’s what you’d consider “tiny” nowadays.

      • Bertuccio@lemmy.worldEnglish
        10·
        2 months ago

        EPA has never banned small trucks. This is from consistent misinformation that shifts blame from car manufacturers to the government.

        EPA made a scaled plan that required improvements to emissions from smaller trucks first, then larger trucks over the years.

        Car manufacturers chose to abuse that flexibility by simply not making smaller trucks, instead of making ones that meet the standards, which is why trucks have steadily inflated in size in the US as they make whatever the next unregulated size class is that year.

        You can of course partially blame EPA for not having the foresight to predict that would happen - but they also make regulations under pressure from politicians and lobbyists who are themselves influenced by car manufacturers.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        I believe that the OP means the Imported Vehicle Safety Compliance Act of 1988, which effectively bans kei trucks from import into the U.S. because they’re not manufactured to the Act’s standards.

        Or, perhaps the Chicken Tax, a 25% tariff imposed on the import of light trucks in 1964 as part of trade dispute with Europe. It’s still in effect, shielding American manufacturers from competition from smaller, lighter trucks.