Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.

Adding such a tax, where every vehicle paya relative to what they do to the road surface they roll on, would instantly make all SUVs unviable. It would also increase the incentives for shipping freight by rail by an incredible amount.
- Yes please, apply the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polluter_pays_principle
  
  The absence of it's application means you make others pay for the costly decisions of a few, incentivizing and subsidizing damaging behaviour.
  
  The absence also often means wealth transfer from poor to rich, as you need to have some wealth to be able to cause significant 'pollution'.
  
  It makes so much sense. "You want this? Ok, then pay for what it entails, all the consequences." Only then people make informed decisions.
  
  Dude, we are still stuck with half of America thinking more CO2 is good because it's "extra plant food". This policy you suggest would have them countering saying they should pay less for helping to feed the forests with their vehicle's emissions.
  
  It's a great solution, but I don't know how we could get it passed.
  
  Great idea, I hear Aramco is the world's biggest polluter, let's start there.
- Cars should be taxed based on their potential for road wear, which is calculated approximately by their weight to the fourth power.
  
  Road wear comes from weight and power, so does pollution. Add size to the equation and you can estimate a cars dangerousness. Look only at size and you can see a cars damage to urban spaces. Hence, private vehicles should be taxed based on their size, weight and power. Bonus points for tire width, because tires are a non-recycable environmental problem and super-wide tires add nothing to the world but damage.
- Dutch cars are taxed on weight, with temporary exceptions for EVs.
  
  Does it scale to the fourth power? If yes, colour me impressed.
  
  Which does make sense since the heavier they are the more damage they do on roads.
- As someone who lives in a country that actually has this system. No. It's a shitty system. It results in old shitty cars that pollute like insanity. Some cars are more economical and safer than some badly built cars with less safety features and those safer cars are actually punished with this system.
  
  You are literally better off buying an old banger that is falling apart and a road hazard than a new car because of our stupid tax system. And the people who drive SUVs here are usually rich and don't care about higher road tax.
- You'd need some carve out for electric vehicles, they are super heavy compared to a gas car of the same size. (Assuming you want to encourage electric over gas)
They should not be allowed in cities at all because they encourage irresponsible driving and when they hit a pedestrian or cyclist, the injuries are more deadly. Make people with these cars stop at the city border and use public transport.

SUVs are a paradox: while many people buy them to feel safer, they are statistically less safe than regular cars, both for those inside and those outside the vehicle. A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon. Studies show they lull drivers into a false sense of security, encouraging them to take greater risks. Their height makes them twice as likely to roll in crashes and twice as likely to kill pedestrians by inflicting greater upper body and head injuries, as opposed to lower limb injuries people have a greater chance of surviving.

I want to add that they also have greater blind spots. I got run over by an SUV driving out of a parking space, because the driver said she didn't see me. I am an old, fat woman with a walking aid with four wheels and had multiple colorful bags from shopping with me and was wearing a white, big summer hat. She would have overlooked an elephant, because her car is as huge as a tank. My walking aid saved me and I only had minor injuries, a kid would have died.
- A person is 11% more likely to die in a crash inside an SUV than a regular saloon.
  
  Was "sedan" meant here and not "saloon"?
  
  Try as I might, I can't think of why anyone would want to compare SUV's to a western drinking establishment of a bygone era. Although I do see how being in a saloon at the wrong time would have also come with it's own deadly risks.
  
  It's funny because you could have checked this yourself by just searching "saloon car" but you chose to be rude instead.
  
  Was “sedan” meant here and not “saloon”?
  
  They don't use the term on some of the colonies, but in the King's English, saloon is a term for a luxury sedan.
  
  a regular saloon
  
  I had to look it up too: https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars/family-cars/saloon-cars/363/what-is-a-saloon-car
“The trend of “autobesity” is forcing car park providers to think of new ways to accommodate larger cars, such as introducing wider bays.”

That’s the most disgusting part of this. They are adapting the infrastructure to accommodate the child killers when the sensible approach is #fuckBigCars.

#fuckCars in general.
- Since when do pit bulls need parking spaces?
Not to mention that they are extremely wasteful and not good for the environment and our roads. If a small car and SUV went into a head collision the chance of survival of the passengers in the smaller car are much lower.
- Bigger car = safer is exactly the kind of backwards thinking which causes so many people to unnecessarily buy big cars. The entire concept of Chelsea Tractors comes from middle-class parents thinking they need to do the school run in a tank so little Tarquin and Lilliput will be safe. We have Euro NCAP safety ratings for cars, judge the safety based on the actual tests!
Do they get parking fine for not fitting in the space ? It's an easy way to limit the obesity epidemic on cars
- Nope. Just wait and see then make the parking spaces bigger.
- The building I live in has started doing this for the private parking spots. Any vehicle not within the lines is hit with $80. Their hand was forced since some started parking trucks that leave the entire bed hanging out.
The largest SUV weighs 2,000kg, compared with about 1,200kg for a family hatchback.

That doesn’t seem right. Modern SUVs are approaching (and sometimes exceeding) 3t, while my very normal, 2016 hatchback weights nearly 1400kg too.
- Keep in mind cars are MUCH smaller in Europe. (I don't know if you're American.)
  
  He is, 3 tonnes cars are still not so common in Europe but we are going there slowly but surely.
  
  And they used to be much smaller and lightweight. Middle class and size models from the 80s are often just around 1000kg
This is the best summary I could come up with:

While the size of the standard parking bay has remained static for decades, cars have been growing longer and wider in a phenomenon known as “autobesity”.

There is growing debate about car size and road safety, after two eight-year-old girls, Selena Lau and Nuria Sajjad, died when a Land Rover crashed through a school fence in south-west London in July.

The research also revealed that 27 models are too wide for drivers to comfortably open their doors when parked between two other cars.

The Land Rover Discovery measures 2.073 metres wide, leaving a narrow 16.35cm space between the doors and the bay’s borders.

Often nicknamed “Chelsea tractors”, their use in city centres has long been criticised, with some road safety campaigners calling for them to be banned in busy pedestrian areas.

Campaigners have questioned why drivers need such large and dangerous cars in the city, particularly when dropping children off at school, with some going to extreme measures to get their message across.

The original article contains 603 words, the summary contains 163 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Hmmmm, sounds like these cars need to go on a diet. 😂
- Cars should be taxed based on their size.
Let me guess, Ford?

67 comments