The tax code already makes plenty of allowances for number of children and/ro dependents so I'm not sure why you think it'd be some herculean effort for a car size regulation to allow people with kids to have more cars. There's no reason for a childless couple to be driving a 7-seater SUV around everywhere. If they need a separate trailer for that one trip a year where they need to haul a kayak or something, that's fine, that still means they aren't burning all that extra energy the other 364 days a year.

OP wants to eliminate large vehicles full stop. There's no allowance for a large family. I guess we're also banning anything larger than a small fishing boat as well since there will be no way to trailer it anywhere if we're banning full-size pickup trucks and SUVs.

Average vehicle sizes in the US have gotten larger in the US over the last 20 years. Are you telling me it was impossible to have 3-4 children in a vehicle 20 years ago, despite birth rates falling in the meantime?

20 years ago was 2002... yes in 2002 people who had 3-4 kid drove an SUV, a van or a mini-van, just like they do today. The argument isn't about average vehicle size, the argument OP made was to eliminate ALL large vehicles.

Average SUV size in the US has gone up in the last 20 years. You're engaging the argument in the weakest way possible (ALL large vehicles, which has to mean anything other than a subcompact right?!) instead of trying to Steelman it. I'm not sure that larger vehicles are doing anything to parking lot sizes (it should be trivial to look this up in revisions to your city code though), but they do pose a large risk to road safety (which is most obvious by seeing the increasing number of pedestrian and cycling injuries and fatalities in US statistics) and contribute heavily to road wear which results in increased tax burden to support the paving of roads.

>Average SUV size in the US has gone up in the last 20 years. You're engaging the argument in the weakest way possible (ALL large vehicles, which has to mean anything other than a subcompact right?!) instead of trying to Steelman it.

The AVERAGE size of a vehicle is literally irrelevant to the discussion. You asked what people with 3-4 kids did 20 years ago: My response was they bought the same Tahoe they buy now. Which was nearly identical in size. You keep saying "The average size" when it has little to no bearing on OPs complaint: which is he wants to eliminate full-size SUVs and trucks.

YOU implied that full size SUVs and trucks weren't a thing 20 years ago by asking what people did. Now you're moving the goal posts because I pointed out how silly your implication was. The Tahoe having its wheelbase grow 4" in 20 years isn't what OP is complaining about and you know it.

> YOU implied that full size SUVs and trucks weren't a thing 20 years ago by asking what people did. Now you're moving the goal posts because I pointed out how silly your implication was. The Tahoe having its wheelbase grow 4" in 20 years isn't what OP is complaining about and you know it.

Let's quote what GP said: "There is zero reason a person needs to own a 7 seat SUV to transport 3 people or five 2x4s twice a year. The proliferation of oversized vehicles continues to exacerbate a significant number of local and global issues and I'm of the belief that we need strong regulation to limit the size of vehicles.". You chose to interpret "proliferation of oversized vehicles" and "strong regulation to limit the size of vehicles" as "eliminate full-size SUVs and trucks". I have no idea how you got there and what your definition of "large" here and how it follows from what GP said. That's what I mean by you creating a strawman. If you steelman the argument, you wouldn't get "eliminate full-size SUVs and trucks" from it.

If you applied a modicum of common sense you wouldn’t be bending over backwards to try to make an argument that regulating the max size of a vehicle somehow leaves room for interpretation. There’s literally no reason you would “regulate the max size of a vehicle” unless you’re trying to eliminate a category that currently exists. “Sorry guys, you can’t make the suburban any bigger” would change absolutely nothing and not address his concerns at all. But you keep prattling on about straw man arguments if that makes you feel better. You’ve yet to contribute anything of substance to the discussion and I doubt you’re going to start now.

> Who decides what is "large enough"?

Maybe the market can decide. We could be levying higher prices in taxes on the cars that occupy more space, damage roads more and are more dangerous to pedestrians.

By and large we already do that. The larger vehicles are more expensive, and in most states your tabs are based on the price of the vehicle. If you want to go a step beyond that, I'm sure you'd be able to find some support if it wasn't an outrageous tax. This assumption that because OP doesn't need a large vehicle, nobody has a reason to need one is just silly.

And as I said, it does absolutely nothing to address parking lots.

Let the market decide. Pick a winner in advance and tax the outcome I don't want out of existence. This is about as much market-based policy as your typical politician is maiking science-based policy.

Agree on this point. I have a "compact" pickup and I absolutely will not even try to park it in a garage as the spaces are too small.

I wish the judgement would stop on what people need/use. If they cause a huge impact, add a tax. (lower the gas guzzler MPG requirement, etc)

Any before anyone says anything, I do construction/wood working on the side so yes, I absolutely use it but do not daily drive it.

The judgement exists because construction is happening in economies around the world but only Americans drive this many large vehicles. Unless you think Americans are building _more_ than other economies (which it definitely isn't), you'll quickly come to the conclusion that because parking and large lane widths are mandated by local code and vehicle weight isn't really taxed in any way, that Americans have an incentive to buy as big a car as they can that fits within their government mandated built environment.

You could consider just not participating in sports that require strapping on 20 pounds of plastic equipment for protection.

I don't think it's necessary to change recreational activities to use fewer automobiles. Plenty of folks in Europe and East Asia participate in sports with lots of equipment and still take trains. It's just an American cultural norm. Most people in the US immediately view transit as unsuitable when you have to bring large objects, when places that actually have a culture of using transit don't.