| |
| ▲ | singron 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I believe small trucks were unintentionally killed by CAFE. The regulation gives companies fuel efficiency targets. Prior to 2011, there were separate targets for categories like "passenger" and "light truck", but since 2011 it's been based on a formula of wheel footprint. Manufacturers realized that instead of trying to make current models more fuel efficient they could make bigger trucks instead. It was definitely one of the greatest failures of regulation and unfortunate that Congress never fixed it in 14 years. CAFE was essentially gutted in the recent budget bill. | | |
| ▲ | Jach 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | That regulation certainly didn't help. Though more fingers can be pointed around, I think, for what has contributed in important amounts. What also has to be explained is that the modern giant F-150 is just a massively popular vehicle vs. all other vehicles, even if I and other small truck enjoyers don't have much interest in one. I think the optionality of them helps them sell quite a bit. As one incentive, regulations on car seat requirements often come up in various government complaints, but the F-150s with a dual cab can fit 3 in the back (and under the seats and the truck bed handles whatever else like strollers and so on), so the vehicle can make sense as a family vehicle for a younger and not too poor family. Interest rates on loans being lower until recently also helped not so rich people stomach the financing, though sales have been getting back to 2019 levels so I'm not sure how much that matters. Any other aspirations like towing a trailer/camper, or taking it onto dirt roads, or doing occasional "truck stuff", make it all the more attractive even if the options aren't exercised or can be individually satisfied better by other choices. | |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I wish our country was functionally governed again. | |
| ▲ | fruitworks 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unintended consequences. Perhaps it have been better to tax fuel directly? | | |
| ▲ | throw10920 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That's the natural thing you think of, but then you have the problem that a fuel tax is a regressive tax on the poorest - who are usually also driving less efficient vehicles because they're cheaper, so they're hit twice as hard. But, if you tax vehicles by size, then you run into the issue that a lot of working-class people need large trucks to do their work. It's a hard problem and I've been thinking about it for a while. | | |
| ▲ | strawhatguy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Thinking government can help is wrong to begin with. It can't, it can only get in the way. Perhaps electric vehicles and definitely smaller vehicles could've been more prevalent today without the CAFE rules. Other environmental rules prevent (or make prohibitively expensive, same thing) the mines in which rare earth metals for batteries for EVs are produced. At least the federal EV mandates are gone now (my state's still exists though, sadly). That would've only driven up costs, meaning more people either would NOT drive EVs at all, or would be even more in debt then they are now. | |
| ▲ | singron 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Congress probably isn't functional enough to pull it off, but they could pass a regressive fuel tax and then make up for it with adjustments to income tax. E.g. adjust progressive tax brackets or the EITC. |
|
|
|
|
