• lepinkainen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Allow them, don’t ban.

    BUT make owning one so expensive and annoying nobody wants to get one.

    Extra taxes, extra costs, don’t let big gas guzzlers in city centres etc.

    • OshaqHennessey@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      So, pass a ban that only applies to poor people and let the rich continue to do whatever they want still since they can afford the fine?

    • gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Nah, just ban them.

      Extra Tax and Fees just makes it a poor people tax, and rich assholes will carry on as if nothing changes. A straight-up ban makes them not appear at all.

      • OshaqHennessey@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This is the better option. But, if you’re gonna do that, there needs to be some kind of program that allows people to sell their banned vehicle to the government for above market value so they can afford to purchase a comparable, but more suitable vehicle instead. Otherwise, you’re gonna have a bunch of pissed off people with six-figure, three-ton lawn ornaments crying about how they couldn’t have known their vehicle would get banned and it’s now useless.

    • myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Americans are paying 100k for these fucking things now. Taking out 10 year long loans to pay for it. And then crying about gas prices on twitter. Not sure cost will stop people. People are idiots.

    • Rcklsabndn@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Agreed, wasn’t it a ‘work truck’ heavy vehicle tax break after the fuel crisis in the 70s that created these monstrosities?

      (Please correct me if I’m wrong, I’m late for work.)

      • OshaqHennessey@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”

      • OshaqHennessey@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Close. I believe you’re referring to the EPA efficiency mandates passed in the 90s that carved out exceptions for “heavy duty” trucks and SUVs, which lead to the creation of “crossover” vehicles, which started as a way to deliver car-like efficiency and features, while still minimizing development and efficiency costs by still having it classified as a “truck.”

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 hours ago

        AFAIK yes, that’s the loophole. If a vehicle is heavy enough then the law assumes it must be for “work” and thus some pollution laws don’t apply.

        Car manufacturers noticed this and thus the massive “Sports” “Utility” Vehicle was born.