Post #32,217
3/14/02 3:50:51 PM
|
CAFE standards revisions shot down
The Senate has [link|http://www.msnbc.com/news/721318.asp?cp1=1|voted against] stricter mileage standards.
Deservedly so, IMO.
I'm all for better mileage, but I've driven some of these high gas mileage cars. Besides having the responsiveness of a lazy turtle, if I had been driving a lighter car (as many of the high-mileage cars are), I might not have lived through getting T-boned by a tow truck a couple of years ago. (And the car I currently drive does get close to 30 mph anyway.)
What I *don't* like seeing is that the Senate weaseled out of making *any* decision and foisted it off on the Department of Transportation, which essentially means that at some point a faceless bureaucrat is going to write a regulation to implement God knows what.
|
Post #32,224
3/14/02 4:34:50 PM
|
Problem I have with CAFE
It is responsible for SUVs. Since SUVs and pickup trucks are classified as "light trucks" they aren't counted against fleet fuel economy.
IMO if you're going to claim the benefit of classifying it as a truck, then you should have to locense it as such. Which brings with it al kinds of other responsibilities, like streets you can't drive on, places you can't park, having to stop at weight stations ...
Or course, the right solution for this is not to eliminate CAFE, but to close this loophole.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #32,228
3/14/02 4:43:52 PM
|
declare a station wagon a lite truck
There is no difference between a "settler," "soldier," "secular," or "Chassidic Jew." The target is the JEW.
\ufffd Harvey Tannenbaum
|
Post #32,262
3/14/02 10:05:45 PM
|
Once upon a time
a long, long time ago, in a country I remember with great nostalgia...
When somebody was doing something the onlookers thought stupid and/or foolish, sooner or later one would remark with a headshake, "Well, it's a free country."
Out here away from the urban sprawl, large vehicles make all kinds of sense. They cost more to operate, but that's paid gladly.
I'll give you that urbanites driving SUVs is silly, but I simply cannot figure out the hostility I see among the people here. Kill the bastards! Take away their !#$!%#$$ SUVs and make them drive Hyundais! What you don't seem to figure out is that that attitude is one of (the many) forces pushing the SUV craze.
Driving big cars is bad for me and irresponsible, right? You sound exactly like preachers raving about "sin", and just like congregations, the response is precisely the opposite of what you claim you want. There are few forces among the people I know well stronger than the one that ends up with "Up yours, you officious b*d."
Tell you what, I'll compromise. Nobody who voted for Al Gore, lives in an apartment, or has more than two neighbors within 100 meters is allowed to drive an SUV without a special permit from the Government. The bureaucracy to set that up will be nicely adaptable when the Heimatsicherheitamt gets rolling.
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #32,265
3/14/02 10:15:25 PM
|
Urbanites driving SUVs...
... isn't so silly when they live in the snow belt. :-)
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #32,281
3/14/02 11:51:45 PM
|
Me tries to explain
I'll give you that urbanites driving SUVs is silly, but I simply cannot figure out the hostility I see among the people here. Kill the bastards! Take away their !#$!%#$$ SUVs and make them drive Hyundais! What you don't seem to figure out is that that attitude is one of (the many) forces pushing the SUV craze. The CAFE standards actually drove the SUV craze. Without CAFE, we'd still have the full-bodied station wagons that big families used to enjoy. Nowdays, there are station wagons, but they are a shriveled excuse for what once drove Chevy Chase across the American plains. CAFE is an excellent example of "unintended consequences". They imposed a mileage requirement on cars, so the station wagon went bye-bye. But then the auto people started getting sales of pickups and such and realized it didn't apply to what is known as SUV's, so they started making them and people bought them out the wazoo. Sigh. The regulators still don't realize that the problem isn't oil, it's in the basic mechanism we use to drive around. Until you get something other than the internal combustion engine, 36 miles per gallon isn't going to fix dicksquat. Where each demon is slain, more hate is raised, yet hate unchecked also multiplies. - L. E. Modesitt
|
Post #32,292
3/15/02 4:25:11 AM
|
I don't believe anyone here is saying that, there are NO
sane uses for an SUV. What is an insane use, I'd opine, is that which is featured in *EVERY* fucking Tee Vee ad: the appeal to adolescent bravado, cross the Orinoco on a raft; destroy a bunch of flora and fauna enroute to some mountain top: then ride your trick Titanium $5K bicycle straight down the crag. And somehow survive til bragging rights at the sports bar..
Somewhere out there must be Real numbers about the % of these fantasies - once purchased - which virtually NEVER are driven* where 4-WD is even an advantage (it sure isn't any for the 99% spent on the road in good weather - just more friction drag + wear of expensive xfer cases, to no purpose whatsoever except making [oil] Corps their next most profitable year - like last year).
* and if they DO get dirty - they are detailed next day. Purty is what That is about, and was from when the ad first started the salivatin.
I dunno about the rest of the folks, but the above is what frosts my gonads; that and the Other unintended consequences like: the grossly mismatched BUMPER heights - which KILL the (still majority but declining) 'normal' height vehicles: by heading that antiquated truck frame-rail right at the passengers in the cab of the victim car. Now add in the terrible handling, the turtle-prone behavior and.. it's the Others, *not* the besotted adolescent Walter Mitty Urban Assault Vehicle driver who pays the ultimate price. (There's your source of animosity, too. Bloody-well Earned.)
So enjoy your Texas toys out there in the wilderness - No Problemo Se\ufffdor. Just keep the other fucking 99% somehow.. occupied with less deadly pursuits. Like bronco busting? or maybe skiing just outside of the Avalanche Warning signs, on a regular basis. Ski that way every weekend, and help keep the gene pool in balance. (They'll always remember how great it was, that you flunked Sign Reading 101-Remedial).
Ashton
A disintegrated UAV a day is..
plain fucking Self Defense, y'know?
|
Post #32,308
3/15/02 9:07:04 AM
|
Not saying that at all
Out here away from the urban sprawl, large vehicles make all kinds of sense. They cost more to operate, but that's paid gladly.
And if part of the cost of that was that it had to be licensed as a truck, would that price also be paid gladly? I'm assuming it would be ... by people who have a genuine need for them.
Remember, that's what I said we should do. If they're exempted from CAFE standards because they're trucks, then dammit they're trucks. And if you really need a truck, go right ahead and buy it.
I'm one of those people who would love to be able to find a full-size station wagon. But as someone else just pointed out, they don't exist any more. That leaves me with the options of: full-size sedan, that isn't quite what I need; mini-van, which would be OK, except I don't like how they handle in snow; or an SUV.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
Post #32,473
3/16/02 8:48:46 PM
|
So let's do away with CAFE
CAFE, like any other regulation, distorts the market; that's what it's for.
Unfortunately this one had "unforeseen consequences" (::chuckle:: maybe by you) and needs to be rethought.
What if you could have your big station wagon without trying to force thirty or so other people into an econobox? Because that's the tradeoff. I personally don't think the total fuel use would be a whole lot different; it might even be smaller if you could get the soccer moms and urban commandos back into cars, even cars that didn't get 30 MPG or better, instead of Lincoln Navigators.
Nah, it's probably too late; the habit is set. Get out the jackboots, Heinrich, we're going after people whose cars are too big. It'll be a nice break from stamping out free speech, you know?
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #32,477
3/16/02 9:02:48 PM
|
Yes, and start a gasoline tax increase program.
Raise federal gasoline taxes by a penny a week for the next 5 years. Use the money for funding the medical care of all respiratory problems including lung cancer as well as subsidies for public transportation.
See how that changes auto buying patterns.
Auto and truck pollution has had a free ride long enough.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,479
3/16/02 9:11:54 PM
|
I could go for that, without the bitter vindictiveness.
If you're going to distort the market, distort it at the source: the money part. It'll make a big change in the living patterns of the country, though. Have you thought through the "unintended consequences" of that?
Regards,
Ric
|
Post #32,487
3/16/02 10:24:02 PM
|
Re: "unintended consequences"
I probably have not thought of them all and would be surprised with some. On the other hand, the European countries and Japan seem to do OK with prices at those levels.
The transition is relatively slow, prices jump around more than a penny per gallon a week anyway. People could look ahead and think about what if any changes in what they do. Five years is a long time to adapt.
The price of everything that is transported will go up. Things transported a long way will be at a disadvantage to similar items produced near by. Mexican tomatoes may not do as well against one locally grown (depending on season). That might reduce centralization, which is a good thing. Low income folks would be at a relative disadvantage and might need relief in some form.
People will make fewer quickie shopping trips and plan their outings better.
Sprawling development and long commutes will lose favor.
Use of public transportation will increase.
A gas station at all four corners of an intersection will become less common. Some of those gas station folks will lose their jobs.
Yea, it sucks to lose some of that individual mobility. But we've been paying for that with our health and kissing Arab ass and sending our young men to Afghanistan.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,585
3/18/02 12:16:36 PM
|
We already have a hefty gas tax
and the SUV owners pay a higher tax than a motorcycle driver, buy more pay for the privilege. Comparing Europe and Japan to here is silly. On my Xmas vacation I drove for the equivelent of Denmark to Greece and back and still never left the southeast USA. We have the oil capacity, just not the will to get it. People would rather send young men to die overseas than drill environmentally sound manner in the arctic. Canada's oil shale has a larger capacity of oil than Saudi Arabia. Cuba has offshore reserves she cannot exploit since we share the same area. If the Gummint would treat with Castro we could have a pile of oil and they could have an economy. More than 75% of the price at the pump is already taxes. Why tax it more? If you wish to socially engineer people to stay put and make travel prohibitive we will get even more regionally secular. That would be a bad thing.
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where ptohibited.
|
Post #32,622
3/18/02 2:50:07 PM
|
Current taxes are used for highways.
That's an obvious use tax. The more you use, the more you pay.
I'm suggesting that gasoline users also pay for the significant environmental and health damage that they cause. As I said before, they are getting a free ride in that department.
Not terribly different from me dumping hazardous material into what becomes your water supply. It might be very convenient for me. And, I do pay for the pipes that lead to the lake.
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,623
3/18/02 2:54:40 PM
|
5 cent a gallon fed envirotax is still there
unless they repealed it. This goes to the superfund.
thanx,
bill
The Bill of Rights, Void where prohibited.
|
Post #32,635
3/18/02 4:47:00 PM
|
Re: More than 75% of the price at the pump is already taxes.
[link|http://www.api.org/newsroom.cgi?id=I002108&cat=Research+Papers|From API American Petroleum Institute:] In August 2001 the taxes collected on a gallon of gasoline amounted to 42 cents, including 18.4 cents per gallon in federal taxes, and 23.6 cents per gallon in volume-weighted average state taxes. I would say that's less than 30% of the average price nationally. YMMV, but it's not 75%. Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,715
3/19/02 9:21:43 AM
|
you forgot city and county which in West palm is 26cents
The Bill of Rights, Void where prohibited.
|
Post #32,745
3/19/02 1:40:53 PM
|
Ah yes, get the tourists tax.
I always fill up in Georgia on way Pembroke Pines, FL. But, of course, there is no way to get back without filling up once in Florida.
Well, you have not income tax, and this is one way to take some money from you (and us).
Alex
"Never express yourself more clearly than you think." -- Neils Bohr (1885-1962)
|
Post #32,747
3/19/02 2:11:14 PM
|
Yep I am always on empty at the Georgia line.
The Bill of Rights, Void where prohibited.
|
Post #32,566
3/18/02 10:33:10 AM
|
Not the only option
What if you could have your big station wagon without trying to force thirty or so other people into an econobox? Because that's the tradeoff.
That's not the only possible tradeoff. For the manufacturers, they were faced with the choice of: figure out how to make even our big vehicles more fuel efficient; or take advantage of a huge loophole in the regulations and simply make something that isn't covered by it.
If that loophole hadn't been big enough to drive a Cadilac Esplenade throught, they might have pursued the original goal of the legislation.
I can't be a Democrat because I like to spend the money I make.
I can't be a Republican because I like to spend the money I make on drugs and whores.
|
