THE NEXT time you are stuck in traffic, look around you. Not at the cars, but the passengers. If you are in America, the chances are that one in 75 of them will be killed by a car—most of those by someone else’s car. Wherever you may be, the folk cocooned in a giant SUV or pickup truck are likelier to survive a collision with another vehicle. But the weight of their machines has a cost, because it makes the roads more dangerous for everyone else. The Economist has found that, for every life the heaviest 1% of SUVs or trucks saves in America, more than a dozen lives are lost in smaller vehicles. This makes traffic jams an ethics class on wheels.

Each year cars kill roughly 40,000 people in America—and not just because it is a big place where people love to drive. The country’s roads are nearly twice as dangerous per mile driven as those in the rest of the rich world. Deaths there involving cars have increased over the past decade, despite the introduction of technology meant to make driving safer.

Weight is to blame. Using data for 7.5m crashes in 14 American states in 2013-23, we found that for every 10,000 crashes the heaviest vehicles kill 37 people in the other car, compared with 5.7 for cars of a median weight and just 2.6 for the lightest. The situation is getting worse. In 2023, 31% of new cars in America weighed over 5,000lb (2.27 tonnes), compared with 22% in 2018. The number of pedestrians killed by cars has almost doubled since 2010. Although a typical car is 25% lighter in Europe and 40% lighter in Japan, electrification will add weight there too, exacerbating the gap between the heaviest vehicles and the lightest.

Archive

https://archive.is/qnsl5

  • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yup. We can of course exclude semis, construction vehicles, and shit that actually serves a purpose. But it’s the fairest way to tax vehicles overall

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        Which is why they are only allowed on specific roads right now.

        My goal is to get rid of useless vehicles, not the ones that deliver goods. And I don’t think my city is going to lay track to every store.

        • aesthelete@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          None of this will ever happen anyway, but you don’t lay track to every store…you lay track to distribution centers, and then use lighter trucks to distribute goods for the last 1-10 miles.

    • Steve@communick.news
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      4 months ago

      No. No exclusions.
      It doesn’t matter if they serve a purpose; All the damage they still do still happens, and needs to be accounted for. Rolling it into the cost of the purpose is fair.

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Then the price of everything goes up. We already have a solution to semis damaging roads. They can’t drive on most roads unless their delivery is on it. Otherwise they have to use specific roads that were built for the weight.

        • Steve@communick.news
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Roads aren’t built to last forever. They all need maintenance. Semis cause more wear and damage on all roads, requiring more repairs. So yes, if that cost isn’t already baked into the cost of trucking everything, it only makes sense to start doing so.

          The other option, is to give up on the idea of vehicles paying for roads. We could just use general tax money from everyone, as everyone benefits from quality roads. That would also be logically consistent.

          • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I am a-okay with the general tax being enough to cover everything instead of dealing with the headaches we have now.

            • Steve@communick.news
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              That is what we have now. Mostly.
              The current vehicle taxes are never close to covering the costs of road maintenance.

    • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      That’s actually how a lot of people get around these taxes in some European countries. It’s not unusual to see a self employed accountant driving a Hilux

      • br3d@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        Here in the UK, I’ve seen bloody sushi restaurants and hairdressers drive branded pickup trucks FFS. No tax exemptions for businesses. As another poster noted, the damage is being done and needs to be paid for - it doesn’t magically not matter because it was done in the course of somebody using the road for their business

        • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          That sounds like a poorly written exclusion then. The goal here is to eliminate useless vehicles, not tax the shit out of a plumber for their van.

          • br3d@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Plumbers don’t carry massive heavy plant. But I know you were just picking a concrete example of a business there so let’s not dwell on that particular case. The real point is that if a business causes damage to the roads that has to be repaired, it should contribute an appropriate amount. If that makes the cost of doing business more expensive, that just has to get passed on to the customer - who, ultimately, is the one having the heavy stuff transported

      • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Then close the loop hole that allows it and require certain bed lengths that would exclude most of the bro dozers with dual cabs.

        • Mr_Blott@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I said “Hilux”. Not “American Fucking Pathetic Tiny-penis Replacement” 😂

          There are a few Dodge Rams here, anything bigger would just be undriveable and would make people laugh at you even harder than the Rams

          • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Hilux is the same thing. Unusable bed used for ego unless they’re taking it off road.