kallend 1,640 #76 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuote>I was referring to those who wish to impose their "personal" agenda, >whether that be from religous wackos . . . There's a federally funded and operated cross on a hilltop near me. There's a federally operated cross near you? Could you provide a link? . It was given in this very forum within the last 6 weeks - do a search and you will find it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #77 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteHowever, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!" If you had quoted in context, and not cherry picked a particular sentence for dramatic effect, it would not seem silly at all. What would be the fun in that, though, when one can instead misrepresent what a man says in an effort to make oneself appear/feel morally superior? Here is is post about not telling him which car to drive. Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. Let's see if I cherry picked it. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2523409;search_string=mind%20your%20own%20business;#2523409 Let's see, the post I responded to, in it's entirety: QuoteI guess you can get your panties in a wad over anything you'd like. However, it seems even sillier if you were the one who stated, "Mind your own business and I'll mind mine!: and "Don't tell me what car to drive!" But you're not the one .. at least not on a public forum. Yes, you cherry picked it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #78 December 7, 2006 John: Should you have a say so in what car I drive? I "THOUGHT" you said in a previous thread no one should tell anyone what car to drive. . I also THOUGHT you said "mind your own business ... and I'll mind mine" but I guess I was wrong. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #79 December 7, 2006 Quote Yes, you cherry picked it. BS! steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #80 December 7, 2006 QuoteEspecially considering the subjective nature of the qualification that you and Kallend promote..... There's nothing subjective about it. It is a fact that the costs of SUV operations are not allocated exclusively to SUV owners/operators. QuoteIt's kind of silly that just because you and Steveorino disagree, that you automatically default to qualifying his poistion as self serving rather than an honest position. He didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #81 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteEven though they likely already pay more in vehicle price, taxes, operation and maintenance........ I agree with Kallend; currently the costs are not properly allocated. For example, national and regional demand for oil is increased unnecessarily by those who drive large SUVs when smaller, more fuel efficient cars would work fine. That increased demand raises everyone's fuel costs, not just the costs of the SUV owners. That's not proper cost allocation. What would be a small enough/fuel efficient enough car? Perhaps small cars that have powerful engines should also be penalized. Luxury cars with powerful engines should especially be punished, right? Even if they aren't evil SUVs, they have wasteful engines that make much more power than needed, and their luxury features are expensive, so their owners can afford to pay more in penalties, right?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #82 December 7, 2006 QuoteHe didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical. What was the qualification for Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. To me it says don't tell me what car to drive. If I can afford more gas and upkeep, I can afford to drive an SUV if I want one. I must be missing something here. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #83 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote>I was referring to those who wish to impose their "personal" agenda, >whether that be from religous wackos . . . There's a federally funded and operated cross on a hilltop near me. There's a federally operated cross near you? Could you provide a link? . It was given in this very forum within the last 6 weeks - do a search and you will find it. What is involved in operating this cross? Are there rides? Is there an elevator in it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #84 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteHe didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical. What was the qualification for Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. To me it says don't tell me what car to drive. If I can afford more gas and upkeep, I can afford to drive an SUV if I want one. I must be missing something here. QuoteSince oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel There is the part you are missing/ignoring. It's the part that implies SUV owner/operators should be responsible for their own costs, and not force those costs on everyone else.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #85 December 7, 2006 QuoteI stand by that. When the price of driving accurately reflects the total cost to the planet and the community, supply and demand will take care of it. Unless a "global impact" tax was imposed by every country, such a tax would place an unfair burden on those who were taxed. Maybe Bruce, Bob, Lionel, Michael, Diana et al can make a music video (We Are The World - 21st Century Edition) to kick off the effort to have all the countries on our precious planet implement a "global impact" tax on all fuel sales??? Wouldn't it be grand. I wonder how quickly Hugo Chavez would join such an effort? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #86 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical. What was the qualification for Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. To me it says don't tell me what car to drive. If I can afford more gas and upkeep, I can afford to drive an SUV if I want one. I must be missing something here. QuoteSince oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel There is the part you are missing/ignoring. It's the part that implies SUV owner/operators should be responsible for their own costs, and not force those costs on everyone else. What cost would those be? My wife's Tribute gets better gas mileage than my Mustang. Weight?neglible difference. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #87 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteHe didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical. What was the qualification for Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. To me it says don't tell me what car to drive. If I can afford more gas and upkeep, I can afford to drive an SUV if I want one. I must be missing something here. The concept is very simple if you would just get over your silly attempt to take what I wrote out of context. Allocate true costs to any activity, and the market will take care of it. Right now those who drive small fuel efficient vehicles are subsidizing those who don't, because the true costs of the activity are hidden.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #88 December 7, 2006 At least I see what you are saying now. I assumed the true cost are regulated by price of vehicle and gas. Just what is the "true" cost? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,640 #89 December 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHe didn't present an honest position. He quoted a heavily qualified statement, then disregarded the qualification in order to call the poster's views hypocritical. What was the qualification for Don't tell me what kind of car to drive. Since oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel. To me it says don't tell me what car to drive. If I can afford more gas and upkeep, I can afford to drive an SUV if I want one. I must be missing something here. QuoteSince oil supply and pollution are problems (and they truly are) let the market deal with it by properly allocating costs of dealing with those problems to the price of fuel There is the part you are missing/ignoring. It's the part that implies SUV owner/operators should be responsible for their own costs, and not force those costs on everyone else. What cost would those be? My wife's Tribute gets better gas mileage than my Mustang. Weight?neglible difference. the difference is your lead foot... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,421 #90 December 7, 2006 >There's a federally operated cross near you? Could you provide a link? Look up Bill HR 5683. It transfers ownership of the cross to the Federal Government under the power of eminent domain. They now own and operate it (empty the garbage, pay the power bill for lighting etc.) >I think it comes down to moderation. I agree. >I think Kallend made some posts a month or so ago about > something along the lines of issuing fines of $500.00 to SUV > owners, driving alone in the city and charging all SUV owners > something like 9$/gal for gas. It seemed a bit EXTREME. I agree there too. Regulation to achieve a specific goal should be limited to achieving that specific goal. Some examples: HOV lanes are in place to reduce traffic on major highways. They should not be opened to hybrids, ZEV's and ILEV's, because getting single-occupant vehicles in the HOV lanes doesn't do anything to reduce traffic. Pollution is indeed an issue. If you're targeting pollution, come up with absolute limits for pollution from every vehicle. If an SUV can meet them, great. If it costs more money to get an SUV to pass emissions than a Civic, then so be it. But make it contingent on pollution emission alone, not on what type of vehicle it is. Parking is also an issue. If SUV's are causing problems in certain parking lots, then have larger SUV spots, smaller normal-car slots and ticket SUV's parked in the smaller slots. Road wear/damage can also be an issue. One way to deal with this is a gas tax - the more gas you use, the heavier your vehicle is and the more you're driving on the roads (in general.) Another way would be via a weight-based registration fee, with the proceeds going towards fixing highways. Gas usage is another issue. The CAFE standards are a good way to deal with that issue. Again, it doesn't prohibit SUV's or fine owners or anything. It just requires car companies to meet a certain MPG standard for all vehicles in their fleets. It should be done fairly, without the sort of loopholes for SUV's we have now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #91 December 7, 2006 Seriously, what constitutes "real" costs that me driving my Mustang, S-10 or Harley is paying for my wife to drive her Tribute? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #92 December 7, 2006 QuoteWhat cost would those be? My wife's Tribute gets better gas mileage than my Mustang. Weight?neglible difference. The SUV/car was an arbitrary classification. Not all cars are fuel efficient, nor are all SUVs heavy gas guzzlers. However, I think generally the distinction holds for the purpose of the discussion. If what Kallend said about road damage being proportional to the cube of the axle weight is true (I've no reason to believe otherwise.) then there really isn't any such thing as a "negligible" amount of difference in weight. A 2600 lb vehicle would contribute to over 12% more road wear than a 2500 lb vehicle.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #93 December 7, 2006 I don't like the way pedestrians safety is completely thrown out the window when it comes to SUVs/4x4s or whatever you call them. Many vehicle designers go to great lengths to design safe areas of the car for people, especially children, so if struck by a vehicle they minimse the damage (like thrown up onto a nice flexible soft bonnet rather than into someones grille. I know plenty of people who drive them knowing they are safe in their chelsea tractors but really can't drive something that size, paticularly on our narrow roads. Think of the poor bastard you hit, instead of bumper to bumper accident you face bumper to windscreen/side window etc. They are mostly used as status symbols, even in the country you dont need those stupid cars. Tell me honestly that that big Porsche 4x4 or Mercedes 4x4 is a real performer off road? Plus they are shit to drive, they really are. Like driving a ferry with wheels Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #94 December 7, 2006 Notice: please try your best not to construe the following post as an attempt to impose fines on things I may or may not dislike for hidden personal reasons by use of a front. Also, a response from an actuary may be in order to correct me if I'm wrong anywhere. okay... on with the post... Keeping in mind that E = (1/2)mv^2, and that if there's any correlation between type of car driven and driving ability in the average populace, it is extremely weak, wouldn't it make sense for graduated licensing and/or higher liability coverage to be carried by those who drive bigger and faster (more powerful) vehicles? I'm talking about within the very broad definition of what we call "passenger vehicles and light trucks." It seems there's a lot of studies done crashing cars into barriers and running impact rigs into the side of them to see how they fair in the event of an accident, but I think very little attention is paid to what they are, "bringing into the accident" so to speak. I would assert that large luxury sedans and many SUVs with powerful engines cause more damage and are more likely to injure people in the event of an accident than other vehicles. I guess my post can be summed up as a question, "is it a fundamentally different act to run a red light and t-bone someone while you're driving a 6000 lb SUV as it is to run the same red light at the same speed and t-bone someone while driving a 3000 lb car?" I think it just might be. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #95 December 7, 2006 I think it stinks that when I want a steak, I have to pay so much for it. The problem is some people eat steak almost every day and that drives up demand. Which drives up the cost of my steak. It's not fair that I have to pay more for my steak just because someone else orders it more often. "Supply and demand" stinks. Who came up with this crap anyway. Stupid economic "Theories". Won't someone fix it. I think that the chronic steak eater should pay more for the exact same steak I order. Ya know, if they chronic steak eater pays enough, maybe I can get my steak for free. Who's subsidzing who here? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jraf 0 #96 December 7, 2006 Life eez goot! We have two cars with a empty curb weight of over 6,000 lbs each.jraf Me Jungleman! Me have large Babalui. Muff #3275 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #97 December 7, 2006 Quote>HOV lanes are in place to reduce traffic on major highways. that's certainly a nice theory I see it working every morning for those solo drivers breaking the rule (about half of them). They are seeing quite a bit of traffic reduction.... I really like it in the winter when those 7 or 8 cars are going 70 mph in the lane right next to the stackup of cars going 15 mph. Certainly seems safe enough when it's snowing or icy. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #98 December 7, 2006 QuoteI think it stinks that when I want a steak, I have to pay so much for it. The problem is some people eat steak almost every day and that drives up demand. Which drives up the cost of my steak. It's not fair that I have to pay more for my steak just because someone else orders it more often. "Supply and demand" stinks. Who came up with this crap anyway. Stupid economic "Theories". Won't someone fix it. I think that the chronic steak eater should pay more for the exact same steak I order. Ya know, if they chronic steak eater pays enough, maybe I can get my steak for free. Who's subsidzing who here? What a crappy analogy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #99 December 7, 2006 QuoteWhat a crappy analogy. you have to think about it in terms of darts and shuttlecocks AND, the damn steak eater is clogging up his arteries, thus driving up insurance costs for all of us ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #100 December 7, 2006 Try the BMW X5 - awesome. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
