Hot take: pick-up trucks should be illegal as daily drivers. You should need either a commercial license or permit. Vast majority of truck drivers don’t need them regularly as a truck or to tow; they’re just status symbols and make driving more dangerous for everyone else. Not to mention the inefficiency.
There’s an easier solution. A vehicle weight tax that actual laborers are exempted from. Weight is what damages the roads, so a weight tax would accomplish practical and ideological goals.
Why should actual laborers be exempt from them? Do you mean to say that if they drive a company truck, then they wouldn’t have to pay weight taxes? (I would think it wise to have the company pay taxes for miles driven and weight of the vehicle driven during those miles)
Yeah just because you’re an electrician for your day job doesn’t mean you need to own a pickup to drive to the company office where you’ll drive a company truck to job sites.
I was more thinking contractors or farmers who use their own truck for work. Not people using company trucks
Sure, if you’re a contractor using your own truck then you should be reimbursed by the company hiring you, which should offset the tax. If you’re a farmer, same thing, unless you own the farm, in which case your truck should be licensed as a commercial vehicle
I’m just trying to get the idea passed people and those two groups are always the ones sea lioned about.
I’m on a site with about 500 electricians right now. The vast majority of them don’t drive company trucks. It’s really just foremen, the general foreman, superintendent and various project managers and higher-ups.
A vehicle weight tax
These large vehicles use more gas, and thus people with these large vehicles pay more in taxes. People already pay a vehicle weight tax.
Both then. You can’t tax just gas because EV semis/trucks put plenty of wear on the road.
Also the gas tax fluctuates based on prices but road wear does not.
EVs are currently taxed every time they fill-up. Every watt you pull has a tax on it.
Everything (?) is taxed multiple times at some point. How does that matter in this context?
The damage done by heavy vehicles is disproportionate to their weight and fuel use. The current system is clearly broken but we shrug when tens of thousands of people die every year, carbon emissions continue to rise, and our roads are disintegrating.
You could do that, but in southern states they’d just make it too easy to get the permit. See Oklahoma’s “commercial vehicle” loophole where everyone has their car zoned commercial to get a tax write off. Also electric pickup trucks are a thing.
That and there are plenty of people who need a truck regularly enough to justify owning one vs renting one, but don’t use it comercially. The “permitting” for this would have so much gray area, it wouldn’t be worth it. Additionally, if you told all those people they couldn’t have a truck, they’d just go get an SUV and you wouldn’t really accomplish anything.
So…good luck with that. In the meantime they continue to sell like hotcakes.
How else am I supposed to get my lumber from Home Depot every other week?
Is that for your job? You’re in the extreme minority if you need 6’+ lumber twice a month. Also renting a $30 uhaul pickup for that will 100% be cheaper than buying and maintaining a pickup truck. $720/yr. You’re just looking for reasons to drive a truck daily for the aesthetics.
Hot take: Let people enjoy what they want. Hypercars and planes are much worse than pick-up trucks.
Let’s not. Some people’s enjoyment causes a lot of pain for other people, and sometimes i mean literally
As long as the government lets people buy trucks, people will buy trucks.
Rich people jet-setting in their private are far worse than trucks but I rarely hear anyone talking about banning planes.
This is all I see. Instead of literally eating the rich, we’re going to pile on ignorant dudes that buy big trucks. Sure, they’re a problem but they pale in comparison to what corporations and super wealthy are doing.
It’s mind blowing that it keeps working for the rich.
but I rarely hear anyone talking about banning planes.
Then do it, but in your own post.
I mean that literally, it would be good to ban private planes and cut down usage of other airplanes drastically. However using that to discredit people talking about other drivers of climate change is just plain whataboutism and sabotaging the movement.
Bonus points for living on a 5 million dollar “rural” property 1:30 from the city center where they work.
Just call them what they are for so many, emotional support vehicles.
I don’t care what anyone says, it’s just a fact that the vast majority of people who use these huge trucks as daily drivers do not actually need to. Obviously there are exceptions, but they are relatively uncommon.
I use my mid-sized pickup as a daily driver, but that’s because I used to need it and my work situation recently changed. My plan is to get a little commuter car as soon as I can and use that as my daily driver and keep the truck for when I actually need it. The gas savings will pay for it, and again, I don’t even drive a full-sized pickup.
If you want to buy a second smaller car that’s fine, but just don’t do it because you think it’ll help the environment, because it’ll actually have the opposite effect. Producing a car takes a huge amount of energy and creates a huge amount of carbon pollution and other waste. The amount of gas (and thus pollution) you’d save by using a new small car will never come close to making up for the pollution that was created in the production of that car.
The most environmentally helpful choice is for people to keep using their current car for as long as they can, no matter how much gas it guzzles or oil it leaks.
With that said, life is of course much more complicated than that, so it shouldn’t be the only factor you consider in deciding whether or not to buy a new car.
EDIT
To the couple of people who downvoted this, I’m not just making stuff up, this is information I heard from scientific sources. Here’s citations:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-used-cars-are-more-ecofriendly/
Agreed. That said, it’s not my intention to buy a “new” small car. Why would it be when what I want is something that’s fuel-efficient and cheap?
A “new” car never even occurred to me.
Also always drives 130 on the highway and accelerates as aggressively as possible. Then they post on Facebook complaining about the new carbon tax.
But if I ask for help it’s a “handout”.
deleted by creator
Most have no clue how ‘not bad’ trucks really are when compared to cars. My full ton diesel is 7500 lbs and gets 30mpg on the highway and 20mpg in the city. While nowhere near as good as tiny cars are, it’s better than most sportscars and I also have a 32 foot 5th wheel RV. My fuel consumption pales in comparison to anyone that flies out of country for a vacation.
People who drive pickups are just easy to demonize. I need one for work and it is also how I go camping. There’s no way I could fit my work tools into even an SUV easily, let alone go camping in one. I think most people just like to assume anyone with a pickup uses it as a status symbol rather than thinking about the people who have good reason to own one.
I never understand this ideology that you can’t camp without a truck. I’ve been a frequent camper my whole life and I’ve always driven small economy cars.
Because they just can’t bear to use a tent. They think camping must have a camper, and therefore a truck to haul it.
Bears do love when you use tents.
I actually sleep in the bed of the truck. I take neither tent nor camper. It gives me many more camping options than either of the other options.
Right camping means bring my miniature house with me I forgot lol
The truck is where I sleep. No tent, no camper. Just the truck. I can camp anywhere I want with the same level of comfortability.
That’s fine, I was just responding to the sentiment that you can’t camp without a truck which isn’t true. Tent camping is easy nowadays and I can even sleep fully stretched out in my Prius. Pickups don’t have a particularly large cab so I’m not sure why they would be better suited for this use than any other vehicles. You can certainly sleep in some SUVs though they aren’t any better than pickups from and efficiency or safety perspective.
I sleep in the bed, which is around 6 ft long, more than enough for me to have room. I don’t fit into the SUV, so the truck is the only option if I want to stay dry.
I own a diesel pickup (which I pretty much only use for towing our trailer - we usually drive one of our cars for “around town” stuff, unless we need the truck for a specific reason), and I ride a bicycle in my spare time.
Everyone hates me.
I think the problem is not picups per se, but ridiculously over-sized ones like in the picture. From an European perspective these are completely bonkers and don’t actually have significantly more space or loading capacity than a normal sized pickup that you can buy here.
Despite common attitudes, the situation is exactly the same in North America. I once had an f-150 forced on me by a rental agency and it was extremely inconvenient to drive in the city because of its size. Spent more on gas and could hardly find a place to park it.
deleted by creator
Good. There’s not enough space to accommodate these vehicles in Chicago. It shouldn’t be convenient to drive them there. Sorry that that falls on you but it’s necessary for the city to improve from the disastrous conditions that exist today.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
How much shit are you taking camping if you cannot fit it into a standard car? A tent, sleeping bag, chairs, and a cooler do not take a ton of space.
The back of the truck is where I sleep. I’ve never had a tent that didn’t leak, and the truck doesn’t leak at all. Less to set up and tear down and if I can park somewhere, I can camp there.
25 mph is quite bad by modern standards. So I don’t agree with this assessment. You are deliberately burning double the amount of fuel of some vehicles. I can’t speak for you but most truck drivers only use their unique attributes on an extremely intermittent basis. It would be better and cheaper to just rent a truck for the 3 times a year those people need one.
Also, diesel vehicles are extra awful in terms of local air pollution.
I live in a rv (also cant afford a house) and we can only afford to live in a area prone to constant wildfires so we have had to evacuate on a seconds notice often, cant rent a truck for that.
You are right about the mpg being bad by modern standards but a good portion of people drive old beaters/suvs/sports cars all of which get less mpg than a diesel truck, hell my partner got a ne subaru and it only gets 28mpg
Well, I’m not trying to shame all truck drivers. There are situations (like yours, it sounds like) where other options are not viable. But I still think that for the vast majority of trucks I see driving around the city, I have to wonder how necessary they are. Especially considering the number that are spotless and contain only a single passenger and no equipment or tools.
By the way, trucks get a lot of the heat right now because they are the hottest selling passenger vehicles, but the same criticisms apply to many other popular vehicles, like SUVs. The fact that many people drive these vehicles also is not really a defense. We need a radical change in all of transportation culture and methods, not just a reduction in useless truck driving. The single passenger truck is just the most emblematic of the problem currently.
Your honestly spot on i just wanted to offer my view from my rural perspective.
Well thanks for your perspective. Since most people live in cities, sometimes the rural point of view gets drowned out.
But I still think that for the vast majority of trucks I see driving around the city, I have to wonder how necessary they are. Especially considering the number that are spotless and contain only a single passenger and no equipment or tools.
No offence but you don’t know why most people drive trucks or how so assuming why they do, or what they do based on your lack of knowing why, seems very odd.
Clean truck, dirty truck, doesn’t matter. It’s gatekeeping to say how people should use a truck. According to Smart Car, over 90% of driving is done with only 1 person in the vehicle which means all vehicles are bad by that standard. Yet, you’re selecting trucks for some reason. What about sportscars? No one bitches about sportscars but I can assure you they are way worse than any truck, gas or diesel.
What about planes, especially private planes? Planes are over 2x worse than driving but people give a pass to anyone flying to a vacation spot.
I just find the laser focus on trucks to be so bizarre knowing how much worse other vehicles are.
I already said why in my comment—they are the most popular vehicles currently and they are emblematic of the current problems faced by our society. Yes, other vehicles are bad, and they are criticized as well. It’s weird that you mention private planes considering how widely they have been criticized recently.
But no other passenger vehicle comes close to the beloved pickup in the combination of size, danger to other road users, fuel wastefulness, lack of practicality, popularity, and of course, the toxic attitudes held by drivers. Exactly what you have outlined here: that you have the right to frivolously monopolize urban space, poison the air, and endanger lives with your choice of transportation. And even mild criticism or mockery is somehow unacceptable.
But guess what? Your freedom ends where you are actively harming the wellbeing of others. Society does have a right to demand that when you use such harmful vehicles, that you have a good reason for doing so. I hope that we will do so more strongly in the future because the Wild West attitude needs to end for all of our sakes.
Haha yeah I used to think other peoples freedom ended when it actively harmed others too. Then the pandemic happened.
the toxic attitudes held by drivers
That’s hilarious since how ultra toxic the anti-truck crowd is getting. People getting all high and mighty telling people what they can or can’t own or drive.
I’m done talking with judgmental people. It’s not worth the headache.
deleted by creator
20mpg is not bad at all for city driving and considering what the truck can do. That is, haul heavy loads. While a small car will get much better fuel mileage, if that small car drives 5x more than my truck does, who’s really impacting the environment more?
Diesel engines with a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter) and DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid) are actually quite clean. The DPF is so restrictive it will catch pollen. Basically the DPF can remove particulates from the air whereas gas cars do not.
Basically the vehicle doesn’t matter as much as how it’s used.
I don’t know why you would assume that a small car is driving 5x, that is an absurd assumption. Driving less is good… driving a smaller, more efficient vehicle less is even better.
I disagree that 20 is not that bad. Maybe compared to all the other monstrous and overbuilt vehicles Americans tend to drive but there are numerous affordable models nowadays that get 2-3x that mileage. For most people, these vehicles would be far more practical but they don’t sell as well because of the status symbol of the fancy new truck. And because some drivers don’t feel safe sharing the road with a monster truck without driving one of their own. This ends up being a race to the bottom that hurts everyone.
It wasn’t an assumption, it was an example. Basically if your tiny car is so fuel efficient you drive it 50,000km yearly, that’s worse than someone with a large truck that only drives 10,000km yearly. Hence, 5x more. That’s not even talking about driving habits which are huge factors in maximizing fuel efficiency.
As I said before, it’s much less about the vehicle and more about how it’s used. High mileage fuel efficient cars are worse than non-fuel efficient trucks that don’t get driven much. Fuel efficient cars can give the driver a false sense of helping the environment so they think they can drive more without impacting the environment, which is wrong.
20mph in the city is decent. 30mpg on the highway is better than most if not all sportscars on the market. Planes are 2x worse but again, no one bitches because they want to fly to their vacation vs. not going anywhere to save the planet.
But if you are concerned about your impact why would you not do both? Try to reduce driving, but also drive a lower impact vehicle?
The reason trucks get dunked on is because they’re really impractical as passenger vehicles in cities yet they are extremely popular. Reducing driving and flying, while good things, do have significant costs for people who are trying to lessen their impacts. Especially the newer huge trucks like the one pictured here—I have to use one for work and it’s not even good at transporting things because the bed is way too high and the cab is huge—because people buy these not as work vehicles, but as passenger vehicles. But they are so expensive and bad as passenger vehicles that you are much better off not driving one.
I already addressed the sports car thing—they are also bad and there are dozens of better vehicles. An elephant is not small because a whale is bigger.
But if you are concerned about your impact why would you not do both? Try to reduce driving, but also drive a lower impact vehicle?
Maybe I am, but no is asking. The mere fact that I own a truck is a problem for these people. How much I drive, how I drive aren’t factors. I’m simply wrong for choosing a truck, regardless of reasons. If someone has a fuel efficient car and drives all the time, you give that a pass but if I barely drive a truck, I’m a monster.
The anti-truck crowd is just too annoying to listen to.
deleted by creator
That’s not just better than most sports cars, it’s also better than many SUV’s. They really aren’t bad as daily drivers, and then open up the option to get trailers and haul
Also “we need 4 wheel drive because of the snow” never bothers with snow tires
It is funny seeing trucks/suv off the road when i zoom past in my Civic with snow tires.
Newer F150s are getting >20 mpg in real world scenarios. That’s better than my Forester.
Probably better to just kill gas motors entirely.
I went and looked up the metric equivalent. That’s 8.5 km/l or 14 l/100 km. That’s honestly disgusting.
Especially disgusting when you know most people with an F150 use it 90% of the time to go to work, alone, without any 6m rebars in the bed and would be better served by a Yaris that can do 20-25 km/l (ie 45-60 mpg)
What about L/100 Km metric ?
20mpg sucks fyi. A fiesta gets 55 if you are careful 45 if you push it.
There’s an online converter: 11,7607 l/100km
For a split second I thought they posted a picture of a Lightning and I was gonna laugh.
![Gas prices [...] starter kit.](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/92af75ee-a48b-472d-9260-981c6cbde83a.webp){kind=link}