I’m the city centre where I live, I’m allowed to drive a gigantic petrol 4x4 because it was made in 2021. A friend ours can’t take their 2010 petrol Polo in because they’ll be charged a congestion charge for their emissions.
A lot of so called environmental legislation is just hidden taxes on the poor masquerading as progressiveness.
Fuck congestion charges and fuck anyone who thinks that the average person can make a dent on this shit when companies and governments around the world continue to funnel more toxic and permanent chemicals into our environment every day than 1000 individuals will in their lifetime.
What is a congestion charge in this case? It sounds more like a traffic/road maintenance thing than related to emissions?
Most places I’ve lived (US and Canada) only require emissions testing if the vehicle is old enough not to have modern emissions control sensors. The test costs maybe $20 every couple years, which is nothing compared to all the other costs of owning a vehicle.
Presumably your 2010 Polo doesn’t have a check-engine light if the catalytic converter has a hole in it, but your 2021 4x4 most certainly does.Edit: (See comments below about emissions systems).
Specifically Washington State only required emissions testing (tailpipe test on a Dyno) on model years 2008 and older, after which the only requirement is California’s “CARB certified” with no testing other than at the factory. And as of 2020 they don’t even do emissions testing anymore.
It is a charge to drive an older (not better working or less polluting necessarily) model mode of transport in a particular area. It is not a test or anything. Most of these are enforced with licence plate readers and the info on the registry.
Interesting, thanks for the explaination. That’s definitely not something I’ve seen around here. If anything there’s more fees for having a new vehicle because they’re all heavy SUVs / Trucks / EVs, and you end up paying a heavy vehicle tax that older (and generally lighter) cars don’t hit.
At least a heavy vehicle tax has some base in physics (more mass needs more energy to move and all that). The idea that new vehicles are better for emissions just due to when they are made is silly.
The Polo is not mine, I have the 4x4. S friend has the Polo.
Where I live it is law to have a fully functional catalytic converter and it’s tested every year and replaced if needed.
Also it’s a poor justification anyway, we don’t legislate to fine people for something their car might be doing. But then that’s not really what the congestion charge is aimed at because it’s a really obvious poor tax that people tolerate because it will ultimately ease congestion, albeit unfairly.
I don’t remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
deleted by creator
The lights back then probably weren’t very bright were they?
But they used very little electricity, almost none
They also did jack shit for illumination, so…
The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that’s for sure.
Yeah considering they didn’t discover electricity until the 1700s then they didn’t even invent one that lasted long enough to be practical until 1879.
That’s the joke isn’t it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don’t think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.
This isn’t an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.
Could you elaborate? Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.
Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver’s license is required is dumb.
Yes! It’s called Jevons paradox
Wow it is like induced demand but for resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Thank you!
Vacuum cleaners are the classic example, IMO.
When introduced, they were supposed to make cleaning rugs take less time, freeing time and effort for other activities, but instead housewives just cleaned their rugs more often.
Would means rugs are quite a bit cleaner now, so I would say the vacuum did its job.
led comes to mind here with this explanation. extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power. also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)
also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.
Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?
Didn’t read the article but the headline contradicts itself.
It says “equivalent vehicles” and then immediately talks about to difference in vehicle size and weight.
It says “2013 equivalent”, referring to average car bought in 2023.
But that doesn’t matter, because it’s not the headline of the article, but OP editorializing it.
It’s also not technology. It’d be nice if one of the “technology” communities actually focused on technology and scientific development, not business news or whatever Elon Musk is doing today.
deleted by creator
anyone who buys an SUV is a stupid fucker. there are other types of cars that have just as much unnecessary seat space in them. if you bought an SUV I’m talking directly to you and I’m calling you an idiot to your face. on the internet.
Once you drive one, it will change your pov
Suzuki Ignis is stupid then?
Kinda yeah, why not buy a hatchback instead? The Suzuki being taller will inherently have more wind resistance, hence worse gas milage and Co2. Unless you absolutely need the extra ground clearance, which very very few do, it’s stupid.
It is taller but it’s overall still a small car and also very light. It also uses battery to help with acceleration a bit (mild hybrid). I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse. There must be other factors to consider too.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass… especially when parking near other cars with little space to open the door.
I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse.
It makes it get less mpg/range. Also Less “safe” as the higher center of gravity will mean taking emergency maneuvers “swerving to avoid collision” more difficult and the chance of rollover more likely. These are just facts.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass…
I’m 6’5 and understand where you’re coming from but, your comfort is basically bad for the environment in a small minute way is my point. I’m sure it’s still more efficient then 99% of cars in general by the sound of it though.
I have an SUV thst weighs 2,000 pounds and has a 1.3 liter engine, it seats two, you need to stop being a dumbass and sell your gas guzzling car because it absolutely has more wasted seats and a larger engine.
My Ford Taurus isn’t going to get into the Uintas or Wasatch range. Getting rid of my SUV will really hurt my wifes ability to release rehabilitated animals.
But, I don’t want to be a stupid fucker. What should I get after I get rid of my SUV?
People driving heavy terrain in wilderness around here use small jeep like cars. Even US army used use them back in the day before monster trucks became a thing.
Edit: I meant small variants. Not the big size ones.A jeep is definitely a SUV
deleted by creator
A four door jeep is very much a SUV, a two door jeep less so.
I don’t think I agree. Pretty sure a 2 door jeep is still a sport utility vehicle
I am not a jeep fan but I don’t think I can put a 2 door YJ in the same category as say an escalade. We need to make trains and smaller cars cool again.
But it’s not huge ass truck like vehicle. One is parked right next to mu European sized car and Jeep’s smaller overall even if bit higher due to being offroad vehicle.
Edit: I mean small jeeps. Not their big variants.
I think point of critique of modern SUV usage is about their unnecessary big size and weight which leads to space wasting and higher fuel consumption which has its own negatives.
Subaru hatchbacks are great off road and have about the same capacity as most SUVs.
Pretty low clearance but maybe we can get some beavers in there.
I was being snarky originally but you could have a point there.
You are literally the only reason they should exist. One does not need such a car in suburbs or cities.
Just require a commercial license/insurance for vehicles that large (and up)
You’ll have a lot less people who don’t need them
The older (until 2003 ish) Impreza can hold a whole ass washer/dryer/oven/dishwasher in the back no issue then they made it too round. I remember helping someone move and they had a stupid “truck” but could not get the bed cover off so me and my snoopy looking car moved all the appliances (3 trips) while the “truck” moved boxes and flat furniture.
Edit to add:
If you want to have a better chance at offroad with a subaru invest in a good skidplate and if really needed they have a higher clearance model. I have been places in them that the brodozers get stuck in seconds.
100% agree. I’m a handyman and drive an outback. People are usually surprised when I open the hatch and it’s full of my tool boxes.
Even an older model SUV like a Honda CRV will take up a lot less space than its modern counterpart. Station wagons can be sexy too if that’s your style.
Emissions make sense to me, but does conserving space actually matter?
In cities it does. Here where I live there’s being made a point of existing parking spaces being too narrow for modern cars. They are so much wider these days.
Don’t let me start about my station wagon. I can get them back seats perfectly horizontal connecting the back space with middle and it makes comfy double bed. Not to mention that under the floor there are tons of storage spaces to keep all the tools and food or whatever out of the way.
While parent is extreme and minimizes that some people have legitimate needs… You do raise another interesting point… You have an SUV and a Fullsize Sedan. I’m sure you have your reasons but it’s an amusing anecdote.
yeah. turns out animal rehibition isn’t very profitable and I wasn’t really expecting to end up in a responsible/respectable life. We bought what we could afford.
I take my electric skateboard to school when I can(weather permitting) , but I will choose shitty emissions for a 10-50 mile drive to save an animals life over letting it die or live in a cage. and honestly, I am only going to school to get money to expand the rehabilitation… I will try to get a vehicle that is better for the environment when I can afford it though.
A station wagon is easier for moving animals, more space than a small SUV - it’s lower to the ground (huge plus if you have to lift them in, easier for them if you are leading them up a portable ramp).
The trade off is you can’t do soft sand, cross deeper streams etc, but IMO animals don’t need to be released far off track, to me it’s worth the trade off.
You’re the asshole here. There’s SUVs and crossovers (aka short SUVs), almost zero sedans are manufactured these days thanks to the dumb ass govt and cafe. I don’t even want nor have**** an SUV, but judging people for having something you don’t want is ignorant and foolish. People pick from what is available for the most part. Giant cheap ass SUVs are easier to find than a small sedan that gets 4 mpg better mileage and that’s the govt’s fault.
deleted by creator
What about BEV SUVs?
They are a lot more efficient in their class and might convince some ICE drivers to switch. Their range tends to be quite good. Unfortunately they have drawbacks:
- They require a very large battery. If you don’t find >150kW chargers, you’ll be waiting a long time
- More batteries per car = worse environmental impact from production
- Road degradation grows by the fourth power w.r.t. vehicle weight. The big batteries make electric SUVs very heavy
- SUVs are more dangerous for pedestrians due to their size
- In a crash SUVs deliver much more energy, killing more people.
it’s a fucking stupid piece of shit for the same reason the other ones are pieces of shit. you think electricity is magic or something? like it comes free out of God’s asshole? your car sucks ass you fell for a scam
People say everything is possible ? Musk, the step father of the modern EVs also said electricity would be free back in the day. Something’s fishy around here.
I can make my own… Do you make your own gas?
deleted by creator
It comes from the same ball of gases in the sky that you apparently stared at for too long.
I just learned about the Tyre Extinguishers. They use lentils to depress the pin on the valve cap of an SUV’s tyre, so that the tyre deflates without getting damaged. It’s super effective and it’s not a crime. They are called the Tyre Extinguishers.
Do we need another oil price shock to teach people a lesson again?
I talked to a person today at work who complained that their cards tap limit was too low to fill his 1 ton truck. His tap limit: $400.
I don’t think the price is going to shock these people.
deleted by creator
I would assume a slip tank or something but at todays gas prices that is less then 300 litres. Stupid, yes. Complete bullshit, no.
They never last long enough for people to remember the lesson. After a year or two, prices return to ‘normal’. Then 2-3 years after that, car makers release fuel efficient vehicles that nobody wants because fuel prices have gone back down.
the steady increases over time have a boiling frog effect. Someone could probably start a gas subscription business right now to offer a steady price at participating gas stations for a monthly fee and make a FUCKLOAD of money.
Or just taxing it appropriately, rather than letting people think driving 3 tons of metal 80 miles a day is a normal and responsible thing to do.
I’d gladly pay the extra fuel costs to have a vehicle that’s worth a damn and has actual towing, hauling, and off road capabilities.
A body on frame SUV (like a Ford Excursion) is quite possibly the most utilitarian and swiss army knife like vehicles available. It seats a huge amount of people, has as much space as a cargo van, has the same tow rating as a 3/4 ton truck, and its 4WD with big tires and lots of ground clearance.
Fuck SUVs.
CAFE should just differentiate by unibody and body/frame.
Make unibody have a high requirement.
You want a truck? You can have a truck.
And get rid of paying your way out of your mileage requirement. Or at least raise the rate astronomically.
Rollie Williams and Nicole Conlan from Climate Town on YT talked about this on their podcast, The Climate Denier’s Playbook, a few weeks ago.
Car companies, at least domestic ones, are subverting fuel economy rules by making cars “like trucks” due to a loophole in the code about Light Duty vehicles (SUVs are light duty trucks and hence get around requirements that other, smaller light duty vehicles have imposed on them).
It’s the same reason we see bigger and bigger trucks that look like tanks and that you can’t see children from. Those bigger vehicles require bigger engines to move, hence more greenhouse emissions.
Iirc, the “light Trucks” is only in US law through, right?
Correct, but companies prefer to minimize costs to maximize profit, so if a large portion of their total markets changes rules, companies will likely adjust so that their products are all the same for all markets. A similar thing will probably happen with Apple once the USB-C thing goes into effect in the EU, affecting US and other markets.
It just goes back to H. W. Bush’s statement that “the American way of life is not up for negotiation” in addressing climate change. It’s like everything (that doesn’t threaten profits too much) is up for negotiation, except for the primary driver of the problem.
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
https://www.newsweek.com/its-hard-find-small-car-us-thats-not-going-change-soon-1808174
That has to be the case only in the US.
Not really. Even in EU the cars are getting bigger even if not as fast as in the US.
Some year ago the small city cars were smaller than the today version.
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
From the article…
“SUVs and crossovers were traditionally less fuel efficient and more expensive, but that’s not the case anymore. Engine and technology advancements have leveled those drawbacks. SUVs and crossovers are now just as fuel efficient and offer more hauling capability as similar-sized cars for about the same price in many cases,”
So, who do I believe?
“Engine and technology advancements” can also be applied to smaller cars so that doesn’t really move the needle anywhere.
I think it’s quite obvious that unless you discover how to break the laws of physics, the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
Be interesting to know how much different the two were, if the difference was minimal, or very large.
If it’s minimal, and you need the carrying capacity, then it wouldn’t be such a bad thing to own a SUV.
If it’s not minimal, yeah then it’s better just renting an SUV size vehicle when you need to carry something of large capacity. Unless you need that capacity each and every day, then it would be cost prohibitive to rent versus own.
deleted by creator
Also the average length of car ownership before buying something else is about 5 years, but the average loan duration for a new car is 7 years.
The car market in the US is just screwed.
My Honda Civic was built in 2008 and it’s fine. My car before that was a Nissan Sentra and it lived 22 years. Drive them until they are piles of rust kept going by duct tape and raw anger, and try not to shed manly tears when they are crushed into a cube.
I am sorry car, but this is a good death.
My 2006 Civic was a lemon. I had to replace it after only 10 years
Only the lower end “economy” Hondas are super reliable. Honda’s higher-end models tend to use newer and less well-vetted engineering while the basic models all rely on older tried and true technology. I learned this the hard way with my 2006 Accord V6 which was a blast to drive, but like yours only lasted about 10 years before it started having serious and very expensive problems.
that’s insane, I have a 2005 toyota corolla with zero interest in getting a new car.
Not all cars are bought with loans though.
Then those data points will have 0 for their loan years and it should bring dowm your average years.
Are those data points even included in the set?
The opposite is also possible: those bought with loans are probably bought new, and would be expected to be held onto for longer. Older cars are cheaper and are probably bought more with cash. They probably also kick the bucket / are re-sold more quickly.
Those that do loans are much more likely to have negativity equity when trading in. Which is already proven with those who have terms longer than 4 years. This means on trading in, the borrower is looking at an increased car payment on top of the already higher average transaction price of $35,000. If you put money down, default on the loan and lose the car, you’ve quite literally given away money.
It’s true the average loan is 7 years, but within the last few years there are 10 year (!) loans are available. This helps bring down an $800 payment. But that interest is gonna suck if you don’t get a very low rate.
Those that pay off their loans tend to keep their cars for 10 to 12 years. Assuming the car doesn’t catastrophically fail. Which anecdotally happened to our family. 1.6L Ford EcoBoost defect killed the engine 2 years after a 4 year loan was paid off.
Speaking anecdotally here, I wonder if the banks are trying to push those super long loans, too. I bought my car last year, have excellent credit, and put 50% down. The only loan I was offered was an 8 year loan when I wanted 4. Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible, and it was much faster than the 4 years I asked for.
Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible
As a general FYI for anyone who reads this comment, be aware that bank loans front load the payment of the interest, and the payment of the principal is done on the back end.
So you have to pay off a loan very quickly to avoid the majority of the interest you would pay for that loan.
Finally, if you pay extra to try to finish a loan off early, make sure any extra amount you pay is marked as “principal only”. Banks are supposed to always apply any extra to the principal, but a lot of times they apply the extra to the interest, unless you explicitly tell them not to.
In this case, I had a deal that had no penalties for early payoff, so in my case, paying off my car in 1/8 the time saved me 7 years of interest with no serious downside. Unless you count credit scores being BS and paying off loans early technically not being ideal credit management.
Fair enough, but I wasn’t actually talking about early payoff penalty. I was speaking to the payback schedule that the loan company has you reimburse them with.
You pay your loan back on a monthly basis. In the earlier years, each monthly payment goes (for example) 80% to interest owed, and 20% owed to principal. Usually around the last fiveish years mark, your payment is applied 10% interest, 90% principal. The bank/loan giver makes sure they get their profit from offering you the loan in the earlier years. In other words, each monthly payment by you is NOT going 50%/50% interest/principal.
Don’t get me wrong though, its ALWAYS good to pay off your loan early, from a total $ amount paid when you are done point of view. But if you take ten years to pay off a fifteen year loan, you’ve paid off most of the interest owed already, where if you pay off a fifteen year loan in five years you’ve paid less interest owed, % wise.
(The time frames I mention above is estimates for sake of this discussion, YMMV for your actual load, but the principal of what’s being said is valid.)
Would you rather make more money per unit product or less money per unit product?
well yea, that’s obviously why they do it.
doesn’t make it good.
Change the laws. If it is a truck you should have to get a CDL, have to go to weight stations, cant drive on the parkway etc. If it is a car it should have to follow the emission rules cars have. There is no point in having standards if we make exceptions so big you can drive a cough…sports utility vehicle…cough through.
Edit: of course we can pretty much end the pickup market tomorrow if we provide free therapy for men with a micropenis.
deleted by creator
You clearly don’t know what a CDL is
Could you give the rest of us a quick education on what that is?
deleted by creator
2 secs with Google would show you it’s a Commercial Driver’s License.
I’n never sure though that the initials a person is using is for the same thing that comes up as the first item on a Google search, so I like to ask the person instead.
But I’m sure you already knew that.
I wouldn’t have bothered asking if I did.
but again, you knew that.
Not sure how I pissed you off, but I really didn’t know.
For those that (actually) didn’t know, there ya go.
As someone who didn’t know, thank you.
You must be lots of fun at parties.
Boring…sorry you were shortchanged down there.
deleted by creator
I am sure car companies spend a ton of money lobbying politicians to never do this.
Fine whatever. I will start leaving notes in the bed of gas guzzling pickups that say “sorry about the micropenis you feel you need to compensate for”
that would be a great way to undermine your entire cause.
some people just prefer larger cars, and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
Oh woah is me. The small dick energy crowd won’t be on my side. Oh woah is me woah is me.
and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
I was just about to say the same thing to the person you were replying to.
Immature responses doesn’t convince anyone of anything.
Let’s not point the finger at anyone for having stupidly big cars cough 🤧 US cough 🤧
Someone pointed our interesting loop in US legislative about trucks and how producers are making their cars bigger to escape small trucks hard mile/gas / size quotas + lobbying of car makers to keep the trend going because bigger car = more profit. I wonder how big they can get them before them trucks can’t drive in single line. Is there something similar to SUV by any chance?
And we did this to ourselves to make pickups in the USA not be required to have additional licensing. We did before Ragan if I recall correctly.
Edit
4 replies and they are fixated on Ragan. Didn’t state he was repossable or not. Here is a good video about this. https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=7PsOF-WE8MXX87vX
What the fuck does Regan have anything to do with a comparison from 2013 -> 2023?
What is this fixation with Regan I see on Lemmy literally everywhere?
The correct answer is to charge taxes based on miles driven * [a factor/multiplier of the]cars weight.
Not sure what a president from 1988 would have shit to do with this.
Edit: Also, this article is UK based… So it’s even doubly so of “what the fuck does Regan have to do with it?”
I agree it’s as silly as it is unproductive to claim that Reagan is directly responsible for something like this, as if everything he did was somehow written in stone for 30+ years.
The person you replied to was referencing the CAFE standards, which are far more lenient when it comes to so-called “light trucks”. Thanks to a vague legal definition that was never changed , “the class includes vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups” (source). Since inefficient “light trucks” are much more profitable than fuel-efficient cars, that’s where the marketing budget went for the last couple decades.
A couple of important hiccups, though:
- The CAFE standards were enacted in 1975. Yes, Reagan pushed back during his presidency in the 80s, but how does that make him directly responsible for the state of automobiles in 2023 again?
- The study cited by this article was conducted in fucking England lol
People see a meme saying Reagan is the root of all evil and think it’s actually true.
The actual root of all evil is fucking Woodrow Wilson!
You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.
The more I read about them, the worse it gets.
It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.
It’s like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.
The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don’t actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example – they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny.
People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer – but that isn’t really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly.
The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you’re in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn’t matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms.
And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse.
Of course, the entire appeal to “safety” is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops.
deleted by creator
Regulations literally brought us to this…
deleted by creator
Regulatory capture brought us to this.
I’d honestly say it’s a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we’re seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won’t solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles.
deleted by creator
Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this.
You really blame the companies for following the law as written?
deleted by creator
Enforcement is also the EPA’s responsibility, not the companies.
And you can’t enforce the ‘spirit’ of the law. That’s not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused.
Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system.
Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence
I think you assumed that comment said something it didn’t.
