GWB sure did a nice favor for those corps his last couple years in office

Are you referring to some specific reform? Could you give a link? I'd like to read up on it

Simplest thing to do would be to just tax weight (at time of purchase and yearly) and require commercial license (only obtainable with demonstrable justification like running a business that requires hauling loads every day)

Still need to force trucks to design the front to be as pedestrian friendly as possible.

And ensure visibility! Those tanks on wheels can't see my children.

E.g. say non-CDL trucks can only have one seat in addition to the driver's seat.

Bam, SUVs are really unattractive.

People's desires are the direct driver of gigantification of vehicles. I assure you nobody buying a RAM or F150 gives two shits about EPA or fuel efficiency.

People had no choice. When they come out with a new generation of car model they stop producing the old.

There’s also still the insane 25% tariff on light trucks

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

Which makes importing smaller trucks like you see in other countries cost prohibitive

Only the most frugal and businesses are thinking about that tariff. Ads for these excessively large "utility" vehicles (which have sacrificed bed size for cabin comfort and are often not 4WD) are very indicative. They don't talk about price (and when they do, it's focused on credit terms rather than the capital cost). They talk about power, lifestyle, and giving the perception of masculinity. That is why people buy these vehicles, and that is the mindset that drives their size.

That's part of it, but not all: it depends on the buyer. People buying big trucks as a fashion statement are definitely doing it for this reason, but there's people who genuinely need trucks, and they're all bitching and complaining about 1) trucks costing $50k-100k because they're basically luxury vehicles and they don't make cheap, utilitarian versions any more, and also because all those fashion-statement buyers have driven up demand, and 2) that there aren't any small pickups available now, since many of them need a truck, but not a big truck. Some people have even taken to importing 25+ year old Japanese "kei" trucks (very very small utility trucks used in Japan) as "historic" vehicles and using those, but it seems some states are now trying to clamp down on this.

There's the Ford Maverick that starts at $24k and is relatively small.

That's exactly what we did on the farm.

We've got the Maverick hybird which does 99% of the farm stuff.

And we also have a tow equipped expedition that we use when we need to haul horses or the big trailer. The expedition also comes in handy when we regularly haul 6+ people.

I've had the need for a gooseneck trailer maybe once in the last decade.

Now if only you could buy the damn things.the price has gone up 25% in two years and you still can't find one for purchase.

Isn't it almost cosmically funny that the response to people who do want small trucks is to try banning the kei trucks, often over claims of "safety"?

Weird that the more unsafe (to everyone else) and wasteful and polluting but also more profitable to industry modern trucks and SUVs are legal in their place!

The loophole for the kei trucks is that they're more than 25 years old, so they get "antique car" status in most places (except where they're now stamping that out of course). But lots of other antique cars are allowed on the road, and while kei trucks are inherently unsafe (they don't conform to federal safety laws and don't have any real crumple zones because of their size), the other antique cars are also just as unsafe, if not more so. But you don't see any of these places trying to ban people from driving their antique Model T or '55 Chevy.

I don't think that's right. They don't get imported, period. I would love a small truck right now - I have a relatively rural property with lots of yard waste. I would make use of a pickup bed probably every weekend if I had one, but a small pickup truck simply doesn't exist in the market. Everything is a giant extended cab. I don't think I'm the only one with this need. There's nothing new out there that meets this need and there's not a lot used either.

No choice? They can get Camry. Or van. Or wagon. Yet massive trucks have higher demand than ever.

There are not many van or wagon options left in the US anymore. It’s really just sedan, truck or SUV at this point. In Europe you have all kinds of vans and wagons for sale.

I grew up with people having vans or wagons instead of SUVs as well. It seemed like that went on even until 2008 screwed up most automakers lineups. It's hard to rule chicken or egg here: demand drying up or options drying up and therefore demand having nowhere to go but suvs and such. Seems to me its pretty obvious that options dried up before demand considering its hard to imagine selling 0 cars of a given model. Then once you go to say 10 different models of cars down to 3 or 4, what do you know, those 3 or 4 are selling more than ever for lack of other choice. Further justifying the decision to pare down the lineup. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy at a certain point.

I thought we were discussing how trucks like the f150 have swollen in size?

There are lots of smaller vehicles than those.

I'm not talking going to a different class car I'm talking when the given model inflates in size with a new generation. Some people still drive trucks from the 70s and 80s in california. They are remarkably tiny compared to trucks today, like a 1970s F150 seems smaller than a modern light truck like a tacoma, definitely lifted a lot less too based on a couple examples I've seen I assume to be relatively stock specs given the similarity.

true! but we regulate people's desires in a million ways, so there's no reason why we can't regulate this too. I don't care if half of Americans want a monster truck any more than they want to fly attack helicopters and walk around with live grenades. it shouldn't be allowed, simple as that.

Nonsense, I'd much rather drive a Tacoma but my F-150 was far cheaper. My ultimate preference would be a more modern (and safer) version of those Japanese trucks a lot of people import, but that's a legal/political issue. My super ultimate preference is a Hilux with a .50 cal mounted in the bed but I can't get the CIA to fund my organization yet.

Yes, if by 'reform', you mean abolish.

As you can see, those requirements just get gamed.

Instead of complicated rules, just tax fuel (or emissions etc), and consumers will institute their own personal fuel efficiency requirements.

> those requirements just get gamed. ... [J]ust tax fuel (or emissions etc), and consumers will institute their own personal fuel efficiency requirements.

1. People — individuals and companies — game the tax system at least as much as they do pollution regulations.

(As part of that effort, certain political elements are always trying to defund the tax enforcers (e.g., the IRS) so as to make it easier for scofflaws to get away with such gaming.)

2. Politically, tax hikes are always harder to enact — and to keep in force — than standards for products and behaviors that voters can see are beneficial to them (e.g., pollution prohibitions).

> 1. People — individuals and companies — try to game the tax system at least as much as they do pollution regulations, and probably much more so because tax obligations are largely self-reported with only sporadic auditing to catch cheaters and gamers.

> 2. Certain political elements are always trying to defund the tax auditors (e.g., the IRS). We might well ask why that is.

Tax the petrol itself. That works reasonably well in most of the world. No need for complicated individual audits etc.

> 3. Politically, tax hikes are always harder to get through Congress — and to keep in force — than sensible standards for products and behaviors that voters can see are beneficial to them (e.g., pollution prohibitions).

I don't know. We kicked off the whole discussion because the standards you have are NOT sensible.

> Tax the petrol itself. That works reasonably well in most of the world. No need for complicated individual audits etc.

True — but see my #3 above (political problems), and then add 3.1: Special-interest groups, which donate heavily to politicians' campaigns, always lobby for tax breaks of various kinds, e.g., tax deductions (at the federal level) for state- and local sales- and property taxes.

> just tax fuel (or emissions etc)

No, because that harm small fun sports cars. The problem is big cars. Just ban big cars.

Small fun sports cars don't cost that much in fuel do they? Ferrari and Bugatti owners are pretty insensitive to fuel prices anyway.

Fuel tax is the best solution. Pay as you go.

More fuel you consume more emissions you produce, more distance you go, more road your wear occurs.

Do you want to get 8l V8 engine? Fine, just pay your fuel taxes.

Each US state has a gas tax already. Higher gas prices also don’t seem to stop people from buying giant trucks and SUVs.

A reasonable well optioned truck is $75,000. People who can afford to spend that are immune from high gas prices.

You'd be surprised how many people look only at the monthly payment amount and ignore other financial concerns when deciding on a vehicle purchase. And perhaps with some terribly long loan term like 72 or 96 months they can get that payment to "fit" in their budget.

You'd be surprised how many people don't even consider the monthly payment. Not uncommon where I grew up to see guys making $50,000 a year driving $70,000 trucks. Because they "need it for work".

$75,000 is waaaay beyond "reasonable" and "well optioned." I got my used Ford F-150 with about 220,000 miles for about $3,000, but there are plenty of actually reasonable trucks with good options in the $15,000-$30,000 range. And I'm definitely not immune to gas prices, I only take my truck when it's for something that I can't reasonably do in our Elantra, or when my wife is out somewhere in the Elatra and I need to drive somewhere.

Make gas ten dollars a gallon and people will consider a more efficient car.

By global standards, the American states have very low gas taxes.

What about the electric SUVs?

You could tax momentum as well. (Or as a short-hand, tax fuel and tax vehicles by weight.)

Tax road wear. The weight over each axle to the fourth power times number of axles. That'll put smaller cars on the road.

This is a silly tangential point, but with good design a V8 can be as efficient as an I4 (and with bad design a V6 can be more wasteful than a V8).

Pinning fuel use seems to be the way to go, rather than penalizing engine geometry, for this reason.

It's important to remember, though, that semi-trucks get 5-8 miles to the gallon due to their weight/purpose. Perhaps these new fuel taxes should only affect classes other than A, B, and C to avoid knock-on effects.

>t's important to remember, though, that semi-trucks get 5-8 miles to the gallon due to their weight/purpose. Perhaps these new fuel taxes should only affect classes other than A, B, and C to avoid knock-on effects.

What's interesting here is that semi-trucks cause exponentially more wear and tear on the roads than consumer vehicles, while not paying the corresponding fuel tax — they're being subsidized by everyday drivers.

Also the knock on effects may not be completely negative, it could mean that it isn't economical to drive a truck door-to-door filled with low value merchandise (And give retail a fighting chance).

It's absolutely true that semi-trucks damage the roads.

What I was worried about was trucks used to transport groceries, not delivery trucks.

Last thing the poor need right now is the cost of food going even higher. They're already struggling to get by as it is.

You can tax momentum (and/or weight), too.

Basically, tax fuel and tax the car.

But no need for outright bans. Almost any externality you can think of from (big) cars is finite, and thus a finite tax is appropriate.

it would be interesting to see the effects of taxation in this particular situation in the united states. from what i’ve seen, this is one of those situations where financial penalties do not dissuade or deter proliferation. at a minimum it seems to foment radicalization of political sides toward their general bent (the government is doing too much, or not enough). one side yells louder for more while consuming itself, the other side keeps buying the vehicles out of spite/support (for the manufacturers) as a way of thumbing their noses at the government overreach.

That's the beauty: If the taxes are set right, then people can buy vehicles 'out of spite', and it's all right.

At a high enough tax rate, the would-be gas guzzlers' contribution to the fisc outweighs their probabilistic homicide.