Hacker News Reader

Comment by coolgoose | Hacker News Reader

I am confused on why some people don't get that SUV's are a preference because they do bring some benefits (namely more space, a bit higher guard (especially useful on shitty roads), and that the alternative aka MCV's / monovolume are just dead and were never a lot more drag efficient.

Does it suck to drive a SUV in a city ? Mostly yes, but is it better to tax people based on the car size ? Won't this just make some people have 2 cars now instead of 1 ?

View on HN

> I am confused on why some people don't get that SUV's are a preference because they do bring some benefits (namely more space, a bit higher guard (especially useful on shitty roads)

That's the reason why it's a tax or fee rather than a ban. If the benefits are worth it to you, fine, but you should pay for the social costs of your choices (which are not just high pollution but also taking up more road space and endangering other road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians).

> is it better to tax people based on the car size ? Won't this just make some people have 2 cars now instead of 1 ?

Seems pretty implausible. What would be the mechanism for that?

I guess if they can afford an SUV, they can afford two cars.

But that is the point, two cars is much worse than one suv

Most SUV owning couples already have two cars.

Going into sterotypes mode now, guy drives regular car, wife drives SUV to take kids into school.

SUVs are more expensive on average than sedans or hatchbacks, but are not indicative of luxury clientele.

They surely are, people that count pennies to buy a class B car (rental category) aren't going to get any of those.

I don't know man SUVs might be more practical. But, I find them to look boring and for all old people. Sedans and hatchbacks definitely have a more fun look to them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com