Hacker News Reader

Comment by rwmj | Hacker News Reader

Cars taking up physically less space could be taxed less (or, my preference, large SUVs taxed more). You use less road space, less parking space, less materials, so that is a reasonable tax policy. The UK has a road tax which could cover this, but VAT could also be used to tax the car less at time of purchase.

Current cars have settled on a certain size, for historical reasons. In fact they seem to be getting a bit bigger. But there's no particular reason for a car to be bigger than a single human being, or other sizes (two humans + one suitcase perhaps). We can use the tax system to change that for the better.

This isn't a pie-in-the-sky unproven idea either. Kei cars are hugely popular in Japan, demonstrating that the market exists.

They're pretty practical - I've driven in a 6 seat Kei-car in Japan, and there are Kei vans and Kei flatbed delivery trucks (all fitting into the smaller dimensions).

View on HN

Cars taking up physically less space could be taxed less (or, my preference, large SUVs taxed more).

Norway essentially does this. Taxes are based on engine size and (I believe) weight. The relative price difference between a large SUV and a small, low horsepower, hatchback is much greater than in most other countries. However based on casual observations in and around Oslo, it doesn't seem to have a huge effect on the size of cars people drive.

The real effect is the 'everybody' owns a Tesla since they are exempt for many taxes and thus cost literally half the price of an equivalently performing petrol powered car.

Car tax in the UK is based on carbon emissions. The table's here:

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax-rate-tables/rates-for-cars-re...

It used to be based on engine size; for years I would get cars with as small engines as possible, simply because it would drop my tax by about 1/3.

As for car sizes... it does seem to be having an effect here. A lot of people I know go for small cars, preferring the little five-door hatchbacks. My last one was a Honda Jazz, with a 1.2 litre engine and an absurd amount of space inside; under the new tax system it'd be classed in category D (£110 a year), but I'd be totally unsurprised if the next model made it into category C (£30 a year). My father has a diesel Nissan Note, about the same size, and that is in category C. He's very smug.

I drive a Vauxhall Insignia with a 2 litre 160ps engine. Also in band C. Also smug. ;-)

> Cars taking up physically less space could be taxed less (or, my preference, large SUVs taxed more).

What would the benefit of this be? You do not get anything by saving space because the car still takes up the same space on a parking lot. It's not taking up half the space so you can fit two cars there.

> This isn't a pie-in-the-sky unproven idea either. Kei cars are hugely popular in Japan, demonstrating that the market exists.

But that's because the economics in Japan are completely different. None of the reasons why people buy kei cars would make any sense in Europe. People buy cars here because they travel distances and they don't want to die in the process. Kei cars (same with moped cars or what you want to call them) are death traps on highways. If you are in cities in Europe you don't drive a car anyways.

Here's one thing: a vehicle's wear-and-tear on the road is an exponential function of its mass. A vehicle that's twice as big does around 4 times as much damage to the road, leading to cracks, potholes and asphalt crumbling. That, in turn, reduces the lifespan of the roadway and requires an expensive resurfacing sooner than if more people were driving smaller cars.

Kei cars will never drive on roads where the cost of the road maintanance is high: highways. If you would start doing that the cost of dealing with all the dead and seriously insured people would be reason alone to ban them. That's what we did with most. Japan is not Europe.

If someone crashes into you with a heavier car, then that's the responsibility of the owner of the heavy car - just like if you knock over a cyclist (or it should be). The ideal would be everyone driving slower in smaller cars, since reducing kinetic energy saves lives. To achieve that you reduce taxes on the smaller cars and increase taxes on the heavier cars and cars that drive at higher speeds. And change the law so if you kill someone with your big, heavy car, you get a more serious punishment.

It's the end of days for human-driven cars anyway. With self driving cars, it seems as if the cars will be bought and owned mainly by large companies (and hired out to end users), so the companies will be able to experiment much more aggressively with different designs and force manufacturers to make them.

Insurances and the state need to pay for this which is why kei style cars are outlawed on most roads in europe. Don't forget that the speed likit anywhere in japan is 60km/h so the problem does not exist there. The speed limit in europe on highways is 130.

If there was a market for kei cars they would exist.

German here, what is this "speed limit" you talk about?:)

But yeah, kei style cars are redundant in Europe because bikes, scooters , minis, nowadays car sharing, public transport and more space exist.

Wouldn't that mean that on any road which carries large trucks, the damage done by cars is completely irrelevant no matter what their size?

HGVs already pay annual vehicle tax based on their mass, whether it has "road-friendly suspension" and the number of axles. See page 3 of this document:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

(Edit: I should say ... in the UK. No idea about other EU countries)

Cars taking up physically less space could be taxed less

Isn't his accomplished more easily and enforceably by taxing energy? Presumably using less energy correlates with smaller vehicles. You also get the benefit of reducing energy use.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com