Giant increase in annual registration fees for giant vehicles in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in DC and I was all for this when I first heard about it. Whenever I need to maneuver around a huge pickup on a narrow street on my neighborhood, I always wonder why someone needs such a huge vehicle in the city. I also work in traffic safety and know very well that larger vehicles pose a higher risk to pedestrians.

But I hadn't thought about people who need the big vehicles for work. That's a good point. I wonder if DC knows anything about the people who own these big vehicles and why they have them. I am guessing not.

Giant trucks and other oversized vehicles disproportionally put more wear and tear on the roads and, most importantly, are far more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than non oversized vehicles. And yes, they should pay a premium for that.

The days of dangerous drivers and their dangerous vehicles being coddled by DDOT are over. Don't like it? Hit the road.

But are there really more personal vehicles that fit this category than there are box trucks or delivery trucks that block roads, park in bike lanes and clog traffic? This trucks are far more frequent and heavier in the roads. And the most dangerous drivers I routinely see drive sedans or standard SUVs.

Seems like this law isn’t really designed to address either road conditions or safety but rather to be another revenue source for the city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

Cite?

NP here but you may just want to pack this one in. It’s so well known that the NHTSA has implemented rules for EV manufacturers that forces their cars to make noise to alert cyclists and pedestrians of their presence.

The NHTSA’s research demonstrates that EVs are 1.2 times more likely to cause collissions with pedestrians and bicycles than traditional ICE vehicles.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812371

So not only is the EV weight make them more dangerous, but they are also more dangerous due to the lack of engine and exhaust noise.

I’m not sure why you’re so insistent on arguing with people about things that are both true and factually obvious. But it takes an interesting personality.

If this requirement is in, then the EVs are not more dangerous. So the surcharge should be based on the model year.

Are you admitting that PP was correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

Cite?

NP here but you may just want to pack this one in. It’s so well known that the NHTSA has implemented rules for EV manufacturers that forces their cars to make noise to alert cyclists and pedestrians of their presence.

The NHTSA’s research demonstrates that EVs are 1.2 times more likely to cause collissions with pedestrians and bicycles than traditional ICE vehicles.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812371

So not only is the EV weight make them more dangerous, but they are also more dangerous due to the lack of engine and exhaust noise.

I’m not sure why you’re so insistent on arguing with people about things that are both true and factually obvious. But it takes an interesting personality.

If this requirement is in, then the EVs are not more dangerous. So the surcharge should be based on the model year.

Are you the same person incapable of elementary math? It would make sense because you are impervious to knowledge and yet have an opinion about everything.

You’re both wrong, dangerously ignorant and just dumb in your pursuit of bad faith. Implementation of the rule has been delayed. However, you have no concern for all of the EVs on the road without noise?

[Anonymous]

This law is a great idea. Cost of remediating the externalities created by large, heavy gas-guzzling vehicles should be borne by those creating the problem. The drivers of these vehicles.

The EV exception is a separate issue and getting all wound about that is just a diversion from the main issue. Fix the big problem first.

You all just like having big vehicles but not having to pay for the damage they cause to society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

DP. It doesn't have to be one thing and only one thing. The car registration fee can promote safety and also protect roads from excessive wear and tear.

DC has had Teslas and pedestrians for years now. What are the statistics showing that Teslas are more dangerous than the F-250s (which incidentally don't even fit on many of the streets in DC, especially the narrow side streets)?

It’s the Rivians that are nightmare machines … and self-driving Teslas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

DP. It doesn't have to be one thing and only one thing. The car registration fee can promote safety and also protect roads from excessive wear and tear.

DC has had Teslas and pedestrians for years now. What are the statistics showing that Teslas are more dangerous than the F-250s (which incidentally don't even fit on many of the streets in DC, especially the narrow side streets)?

It’s the Rivians that are nightmare machines … and self-driving Teslas.

What kind of policy gives a subsidy for a Hummer EV and a financial penalty to a blue collar Joe Schmoe driving a Ford Ranger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

DP. It doesn't have to be one thing and only one thing. The car registration fee can promote safety and also protect roads from excessive wear and tear.

DC has had Teslas and pedestrians for years now. What are the statistics showing that Teslas are more dangerous than the F-250s (which incidentally don't even fit on many of the streets in DC, especially the narrow side streets)?

It’s the Rivians that are nightmare machines … and self-driving Teslas.

What kind of policy gives a subsidy for a Hummer EV and a financial penalty to a blue collar Joe Schmoe driving a Ford Ranger?

One that is concerned with both emissions and size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. To respond to some of the criticism in this thread:

1) The fee is $500 for the really big vehicles. If it is used for business, that is a reasonable business expense. It's not like the fee is $8,000 or something. If your business cannot afford $500 to register a huge pickup that is needed to haul equipment or whatever, then you probably also cut all kinds of other corners. I don't feel bad for you. Also, many of the people using these large vehicles in DC for work don't even register them in DC because they live and base their businesses out of state. It truly is a minuscule number of businesses that will be impacted by this change and most are in construction and landscaping, both highly lucrative and this cost is totally reasonable. It's not going to put anyone out of business or serve as a true barrier to entry. And it's not like it was previously free to register these vehicles. It's an incremental increase.

2) There is not room for these vehicles in the city. Period. If you want to live somewhere that can accommodate vehicles this size, don't live in the city. They are too big for most parking spaces and garages, they have terrible visibility of pedestrians (of which there are far more in the city), they don't fit down many of DC's residential streets. The only want to make lanes wide enough to accommodate these vehicles in many parts of DC would be to eliminate parking lanes. You really think we should reduce street parking just so someone can comfortable drive a Denali down residential streets? No.

3) The alternative here is to simply ban large vehicles from certain parts of the city where they pose a threat or the infrastructure does not accommodate it. I'd actually be fine with this, but I bed you all would cry about it. This is actually better for you. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

1. So it is a 240% increase but we shouldn't mind because it's not that expensive? Then why spend so much time intentionally lying about the percentage increase?

2. You make some good points HOWEVER they are all completely undercut by the EV exception and therefore do not apply.

3. That is not the alternative. That is a disengenuous attempt to make it into a false binary.

DP. Percentage increase is a misleading way to frame small numbers. This is "how to lie with statistics" 101.

And how to make yourself look like an untrustworthy fool is to deny when confronted with them. Lying and obviously bs narratives like "safety" do way more harm then just saying yes but it's not that bad because there is a small base. The lie makes every single utterance suspect. The lie makes it look like one is trying to pull one over.

Safety isn't a BS justification; it's the actual reason. EVs are granted an exception for some weight because the council sees increasing the number of electric cars on the road as a good which outweighs the harm of increased vehicle weight. You can disagree with that (I'm on the fence myself) but calling the safety reasoning "PCOS obvious BS" makes it obvious that you're not presenting the issue fairly or reasonably.

The exception clearly means safety is not a serious concern. It also clearly means that safety is not the primary concern or purpose. Safety is nothing but a cover story designed to disengenuously deflect criticism.

You're welcome to believe this, but it makes you seem like you lack the ability to apreciate any level of complexity or balance competing interests which makes me think you're not someone whose opinion on public policy I should care about.

Lol, now lying exaggeration insults and specious reasoning is a public policy virtue. How very Trump of you. God I hope you're not involved in any sort of public policy. You are the exact thing wrong with our society at the moment and you have really bad judgement. Rule number one of sound public policy is don't lie.

I've never lied in this conversation. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else? Anyway, you're not really seeming like you have any interest in having an actual conversation, so I'll leave you to do your silly name calling by yourself.

dollars to donuts the PP accusing you of lying is the same one on every thread about transportation and housing doing the same. They have a very personalized grievance against any sort of progress that changes their environment in any way, and they have some sort of paranoia about people being out to get them. I have seen these people in action in real life and I can tell you they absolutely have a mental disorder of some type.

Sure they are Jan. Project much?

The simple fact of the matter is that an EV is MORE dangerous than a vehicle of the same size and weight because they don't have engine noise. Therefore it is absurd to claim this has anything to do with safety.

DP. It doesn't have to be one thing and only one thing. The car registration fee can promote safety and also protect roads from excessive wear and tear.

DC has had Teslas and pedestrians for years now. What are the statistics showing that Teslas are more dangerous than the F-250s (which incidentally don't even fit on many of the streets in DC, especially the narrow side streets)?

It’s the Rivians that are nightmare machines … and self-driving Teslas.

What kind of policy gives a subsidy for a Hummer EV and a financial penalty to a blue collar Joe Schmoe driving a Ford Ranger?

One that is concerned with both emissions and size.

There's also no subsidy for a Hummer EV. You knock 1,000 pounds off the curb weight and it's still 2,000 pounds into the highest weight category. I don't believe there's a Ranger in that category, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

+100 every other thread is the same deal. Don’t you have anything else to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

+100 every other thread is the same deal. Don’t you have anything else to do?

“People have made me look foolish on the internet, they must be racist”

This is very normal, rational and confidence inspiring behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

+100 every other thread is the same deal. Don’t you have anything else to do?

“People have made me look foolish on the internet, they must be racist”

This is very normal, rational and confidence inspiring behavior.

What ever let’s you sleep through the night. How the crime in Virginia? When’s the next klan meeting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

+100 every other thread is the same deal. Don’t you have anything else to do?

“People have made me look foolish on the internet, they must be racist”

This is very normal, rational and confidence inspiring behavior.

What ever let’s you sleep through the night. How the crime in Virginia? When’s the next klan meeting?

?

So odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing more than yet another law designed to line DC’s coffers. We all know DC isn’t going to spend this newfound $40m on fixing the roads, even if Cheh “hopes” it’s used for that. This law will have the same effect on improving the roads and safety as the speed cameras have had on safety — which is to say, nothing at all. All it will do is bring in revenue.

Meanwhile, crime is increasing and city services are mediocre on a good day. But what we really need to do is tax people based on the size of their vehicles!

Blah blah blah. Seems like we have the racist who hates DC back! We all know what your agenda is.

What in the world?? That was my first post on this thread. How am I a racist with an agenda for pointing out that this new law is misplaced and is nothing more than a revenue source for the city? Perhaps you responded to the wrong post.