I’ll leave people the hell alone when their actions stop affecting me. When EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN who drives a huge inefficient vehicle has to go with me on my next deployment to the Middle East to keep foreign the oil freely flowing over here. That would be fair. In the mean time, plenty of people have to risk thier necks on and around the Arabian peninsula so any one with the cash to burn has the Freedom to commute 100 miles round trip to work by themselves at 12mpg.
The cause of individual rights to do whatever they want with their own money, Sgt.J? Don’t see how it has changed in the least because someone else chooses differently from you.
Unless you are advocating that everyone serve in the military all the time, since all of us benefit from the freedoms our military secures. I don’t see why SUV owners should have to do that instead of, say, people who eat the food shipped over the interstate system by big, ugly, polluting trucks.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean everyone has to think it’s a good idea. I might have the right to burn oil and gas by the barrel in my back yard because I like to see the smoke (although I hope I don’t). That doesn’t mean other people in my community don’t have the right to call me an asshole for doing it, or to tell me if I had to actually fight wars in the Middle East over the stuff I wouldn’t be so quick to waste it. as for “leaving people alone,”
I think social pressure is a valuable tool in a society. That’s why I express my opinion.
[quote]
I don’t see why SUV owners should have to do that instead of, say, people who eat the food shipped over the interstate system by big, ugly, polluting trucks.**
There’s a big difference between logistics and conspicuous consumption. Trucking companies don’t pick inefficient and wasteful methods given a choice. The use the most economical and efficient mean at their disposal, that’s what market forces do in Capitalism. It’s only when you get down to the individual level you can get away with fashionable inefficiency.
I wouldn’t mind these said taxes if they were allocated completely to rail systems. The east coast is prime territory for a European style rail system, but taking the Acela from New York to Boston or DC is more expensive than flying, so what’s the point? I would like to see all the commuter rail lines connected here, so that people could buy a pass that would allow them to ride anywhere on these rail systems on the Northeastern Seaboard. If we could connect NY, Detroit, DC, Boston, Philly, Providence, Baltimore and points in between by commuter rail where the price was something that your average citizen could afford, I think that people would do a lot less driving from one urban area to the next. I certainly know I’d go all over the place. Hell, while we’re at it let’s throw Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal into that mix. Electric rail is the best sollution to all of this and I would love to see some kind of standardization on the east coast. The rail systems already exist, and as Amtrak trains tend to run on the same rails as many of the commuter trains I think the rails are fairly standardized at this point. Let’s start by merging NJTransit, the MTA and Septa and move from there. And use these extra taxes on gas to subsidize it so that people can afford rail and not have to pay 250 bucks to get to DC from New York by train. That’s the true solution to SUVs and cars in general.
Next stop, Miami and points in between. After that we’re going to New Orleans and then on to Houston.
Ah, but Sgt. J, you weren’t talking social pressure, you were talking government regulation.
Perhaps you don’t like my choice of vehicles. You may choose to express your opinion to me personally, which will get you a polite request to mind your own business, at least the first time. But if you get together with your friends and steal my car and threaten me with harm if I replace it, you are taking a different path.
The differences between a request and coercion are the differences to be kept in mind.
No, the OP was talking about regulation, I never did. Pay attention. I was asserting social pressure by expressing my opinion and pointing out the unintended consequences of exercising this freedom.
Those are felonies in the US (where I live) and no one here suggested anything like that. It’s silly to even bring up in a debate among rational people. We’re debating social and regulatory responses to (what some perceive to be) a problem. Don’t get all dramatic on me here.
I don’t necessarily dislike your choice of vehicles. I don’t think you have to demonstrate a need to buy a huge f’in truck that gets crappy gas mileage (regulation). I do think that if you use such an inefficient vehicle for your primary transportation because “it’s cool” or “I like to sit up high”, you’re a dickhead (social pressure).
Okay, i drive an SUV (BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!). I bought it for $5 when my old 82 Ford Fairmont decided reverse was no longer an option. It is an 89 Blazer (so not one of those monster cars). And now i live in San Francisco, and parking is terrible for any vehicle, and my Blazer cannot fit in a lot of the spots. But i rarely use it, as mass transportation is my friend. (The car came with me solely for driving to other parts of California, as i come from the Midwest and have never been out here before). And **Sgt. J
**, what is wrong with sitting up high so you don’t get blinded by headlights on the highway at night? Do you only drive during the day? Calling me a dickhead because i don’t want to be blinded and careen off the road is the sign of a true [sub]INSULT DELETED[/sub]!
Sgt. J, you were talking about the military, which, last I heard, was a government function. Your idea was to force everyone to join the military and fight for oil.
How you are going to bring this off thru mere “social pressure” is beyond me.
In turn, therefore, I invite you to “pay attention” - to your own posts at least.
Californa has this, too; it’s called the “License Fee.” However, since this tax is based on the depreciated market value of the vehicle, and not on the vehicle’s public burden (fuel consumption, pollution, road wear, accident potential, etc.), this tax is also unfair to super-fuel-efficient small car (e.g. hybrid gasoline/electric cars) which are about as expensive as a monster SUV.
I have to say I **hate[/b} the idea of a gas tax - it hurts the people who need gas the most - the people who make this country work. And also drives up prices on most items.
Again I would like to state that I would like a system that doesn’t penalize people for owning / driving an SUV but a system that will fairly distrubute fines and such for commiting violations with a heavier SUV.
You assert that a SUV has the following penalties:
Increased fuel consumption.
Since we SUV drivers buy more gas a result, we are paying more gas tax. The fact that said taxes are not being effectively used is not my fault.
Increased pollution:
Please provide a cite that SUV engines are somehow more polluting then any other engines of equal displacement.
Increased road wear.
Not to become a cite-nazi, but I would love to see a cite stating that SUV’s somehow tear-up the roads at a greater rate then your average sedan.
Increased accident potential:
Fine, so I am a cite-nazi. Lets see some statistics that back your claim.
You (and others, to be fair), spout off a litany of ‘facts’. Now lets see some actual statistical data to back your statements.
Until then, keep your Prius away from my Trailblazer.
You got to be kidding me that you think your engine pushing around a 2 ton SUV will polute the same or less then pushing a 1 ton car.
Add to that emmsision for 4wd’s in this area is exempt from dyno-emmisions tests (which are much harder to pass then idle tests) and you will have to concede this one hands down.
Did you buy the fuel - if so I have no problem with you using it as long as it doesn’t hurt me. As I pointed out before I think (well I know) the gas tax is punitive and way too high already - but that’s another issue.
I wouldn’t be so sure that SUV’s increase road wear - they might decrease it due to wide tires - and might increase it due to full time 4wd (where the axils lock)
Again we can turn to our friend Newton for this one. The main problem is as I see it is that you are ensuring your safety at the direct expense of other people’s safety.
Please note that there was no anti-airbag or anti-antilock brakes movement because those safety improvements were not at the expense of other people.
Why the “equal displacement” caveat? If I need 70 gajillion cubic inches of real American power to push my car around, it’s a bad thing, even if pollutes less than the seven diesel locomotives that would be required to equal its displacement.
Leaving that aside, SUVs have lower gas mileage than other cars. Unless you really think that SUVs manage to produce less pollutants while consuming more fuel than other cars, I don’t see why you are questioning this.
Why does the pro-SUV argument so often require blatantly misquoting people?
Shodan, Sgt J. never said every SUV owner should serve in the military, he said that as he serves in the military, he’s getting a little tired of fighting for oil so you can excercise your right to guzzle the gas he risked his neck to procure. He also said that he wished he would like it if you went and fought for that right yourself since it’s so important to you. (you meaning SUV owners and no Shodan specifically)
A big part of the pro-SUV argument is also telling people what they are a allowed to say. This tells me that owners of SUVs are not all that comfortable with their ownership of SUVs and feel somewhat guilty about it. We have every right to call you an asshole for it.
As for Tars Tarkas reason for wanting an SUV, so he can sit higher and not have brights shined in his back window is so ironic. He’d rather be the one shining the brights than the one getting them shined.
Anyone who thinks that gas taxes in America are punitive, or anywhere high enough to offset the cost that each individual driver imposes, would get eaten alive outside the U.S. And I say that as a freedom-loving capitalist American.
When I was in Germany back in April, I rented a car one weekend to do some traveling. As it happens, they gave me a Mercedes M-Class SUV. It’s actually a pretty fuel-efficient vehicle for its class, rated 21/17mpg for highway/city driving. (It’s also extremely low-emmissions.) I used about half a tank at the end of the weekend, having driven from Frankfurt to as far away as Heidelberg. When I refilled it before returning it, it cost me 40 Euros. At April’s exchange rates, that’s about $45. For half a tank.
Americans have the lowest gas taxes in the Western world. We have it dead easy compared to the rest of the industrialized nations. Taxes at the pump in Europe account for around 75% of the price, about 40% in Canada, and only 12.5% in the U.S. American drivers are heavily subsidized by non-drivers in terms of who pays for the costs imposed.
Not to quibble, but I don’t think I misquoted anyone very blatantly.
I would disagree that anyone has the right to call anyone else an asshole because they chose a different car than what you might like. Although I suppose Sgt. J would call that a form of social pressure. It’s just not one I feel comfortable with, whether I feel guilty about owning an SUV or not.
brakes movement because those safety improvements were not at the expense of other people.