Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

California looks at banning SUV's

California SUV ban 2003

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 09:07 AM

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/3064821.stm

Quote

California could lead the United States in outlawing sports utility vehicles (SUVs).

Quote

Low mileage is one reason that the state's treasurer, Phil Angeledis, is sponsoring a bill which will outlaw SUVs from the state's 73,000-strong car pool.

Well I think the state has an obligation to set an example," said Mr Angeledis.

"And if we can reduce air pollution, reduce our dependence on oil, if we can cut our costs, then we should do so...

"By beginning to eliminate SUVs from our state fleet, which is one of the largest public fleets... we can set an example - a leadership example."

So... does the banning of SUV's represent a smart air quality move, or is it an unjustifiable infringement upon the rights of the people?
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#2 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,215 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 09:13 AM

Actually they should wait and switch them for Ford's new Escape Hybrid due out this Fall.

Anyway, it looks like the California Motor Pool plans on stop using them. I have often wondered how many state employees need SUVs. I can see game wardens and rangers needing four wheel drive, but not someone just running the freeway.

I don't think it would be right to outlaw their use by individuals or companies. I think it would be better to have higer registration fees on them.

But then I live in Central Oregon where 4x4's outnumber people two to one...almost. ;)

#3 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 09:18 AM

Rovvie the moment you can point me to any law or case that grants a person the *right* to drive or the *right* to drive automobiles that are particularly harmful to the environment, I'll talk about infringement on rights.;)

That said, I think as usual, California legislators have their heads up their rears.  As with so many things they are addressing symptoms instead of causes.

Clearly the State has a legitimate state interest in trying to control pollution but if they think that banning SUV's while doing nothing about other sources of pollution (i.e. all the *other* cars) is really going to do anything but piss people off they are sadly mistaken.
Posted Image

#4 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 11:23 AM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 14 2003, 05:11 PM, said:

Rovvie the moment you can point me to any law or case that grants a person the *right* to drive or the *right* to drive automobiles that are particularly harmful to the environment, I'll talk about infringement on rights.;)

Many activities do not have an accompanying legal "right" to support them.

Edited by Drew, 15 July 2003 - 11:23 AM.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#5 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:05 PM

Quote

or is it an unjustifiable infringement upon the rights of the people?

That is what I was responding to.

The only "unjustifiable infringement" is one that's illegal (or should be illegal).  So unless you're trying to tell me that there *should* be a "right to drive" I have no idea what you're getting at.  Is that what you're saying?.

And if so I'd sure like to know the reasoning behind it.

Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 15 July 2003 - 12:06 PM.

Posted Image

#6 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:17 PM

Lil-- I realize that driving isn't a 'right' in the traditional sense of the word.

However, if you're allowed to drive, I don't think that the state can't arbitrarily ban certain classes of cars. While there are licensing issues, the question is whether the state interest is compelling enough to overcome the general free market ideal.

I realize this may be only my issue, but I'm extremely wary whenever the gov't tries to impede what we-- as Americans-- can buy. I'm not sure that the air quality argument is compelling enough to overcome my personal wariness.

That being said, this is one of those cases where I definitely see the other side, and I might even agree.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#7 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:23 PM

To repeat what I initially said other than the issue of rights.

Quote

That said, I think as usual, California legislators have their heads up their rears. As with so many things they are addressing symptoms instead of causes.

Clearly the State has a legitimate state interest in trying to control pollution but if they think that banning SUV's while doing nothing about other sources of pollution (i.e. all the *other* cars) is really going to do anything but piss people off they are sadly mistaken.

So I agree that what they're doing is stupid.  However I disagree with your reasoning.  Forgive me but I guess I'm in socratic mode where getting the right answer just isn't as important as the integrity of the process by which you get there.:p

You said this:

Quote

I don't think that the state can't arbitrarily ban certain classes of cars.

How can it be arbitrary if it's directly linked to criteria which involve the level of environmental efficience?

Lil
Posted Image

#8 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:34 PM

^

As I mentioned later, I see that point. I'm just not sure that the state interest overcomes other concerns. By and large, I agree with you. And I realize that my reasoning is more personal than legal. :).
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#9 Nick

Nick

    ...

  • Islander
  • 7,130 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:35 PM

SUVs wouldn't be nearly so popular if people didn't like them and weren't able and willing to pay the extra money in gas, etc.

I agree w/ Lil that this isn't an issue of rights.  I think it's an issue of legislators seriously needing something better to legislate.  Tighten the pollution regulations if the SUVs are really becoming a problem, but an outright ban is just plain silly.

I hate SUVs, don't get me wrong.  That's why I'll never buy one.  But this is not something we need more laws about . . .

-Nick

#10 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:51 PM

Lover of Purple, on Jul 14 2003, 10:06 PM, said:

I can see game wardens and rangers needing four wheel drive, but not someone just running the freeway.
In that case the state should put the money saved from not buying SUVs for other uses into a real 4x4.  The fuel mileage really isn’t much worse than many of your larger SUVs and you are burning diesel instead.  The state could invest in some HMMWVs and with their diesel engines they would be slightly more environmentally friendly and a lot more use off road.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#11 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 12:54 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 14 2003, 06:27 PM, said:

^

As I mentioned later, I see that point. I'm just not sure that the state interest overcomes other concerns.
WHAT other concerns?

Articulate them.

Because "rights" isn't going to cut it.
Posted Image

#12 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:04 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 15 2003, 01:10 AM, said:

Lil-- I realize that driving isn't a 'right' in the traditional sense of the word.
While you can’t count driving as a right; I think you can count mobility as an integral part of liberty.  In addition Congress has no power to infringe on the rights of people to assemble peacefully.  Banning the means for them to reach that assembly could easily be inferred as infringing on the right to assemble.  In this country though you do have plenty of alternative means of transportation that offsets this concern.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#13 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:10 PM

CJ AEGIS, on Jul 14 2003, 06:57 PM, said:

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 15 2003, 01:10 AM, said:

Lil-- I realize that driving isn't a 'right' in the traditional sense of the word.
While you can’t count driving as a right; I think you can count mobility as an integral part of liberty.  In addition Congress has no power to infringe on the rights of people to assemble peacefully.  Banning the means for them to reach that assembly could easily be inferred as infringing on the right to assemble.  In this country though you do have plenty of alternative means of transportation that offsets this concern.
'Tis a good thing you included that last sentance.  Otherwise I was going to have to mock you. :p

:ninja:
Posted Image

#14 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:12 PM

Hate SUV's. Hate the fact that the CA legislature is so busy doing "feel good" things rather than dealing with the deficit ($38 billion and climbing), and they haven't passed a budget either. D*** fools. Okay, I feel a bit better now.  hehehe

Mac and I are talking about this ... my first reaction was like Rov's - how dare they! Then Mac pointed some things out to me ... and I'm here to tell you - and hold on to your seats - we both agree with Lil. :D

There are really TWO issues to the potential SUV ban.

One, they are a major source of pollution. They have a heavier engine, and therefore they spew out more pollution than your average car.

Two, there is a safety issue involved. Hit me while I cross the sidewalk here in town with your avg. vehicle, and I might have some major broken bones. Hit me with your 5,200 pound (when empty) SUV, and I'm likely to have major internal injuries and die. Okay - so that's a conjecture on my part, but the weight issue of the SUV, and the rollover issue are REAL:

Cargo Weight and Rollovers — One Part of SUV Safety
http://apps.edmunds....vice.safety.3.*

So the safety issue is very real. The injured party in an accident is not just the occupants of the vehicle, it's also "we the people of the State of CA". Why? Because, by law, our government is obligated to protect us from potential harm.

So I say ... go for the ban -- but get a budget and take care of the deficit FIRST! *growl*


kimmer

#15 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:26 PM

What Kimmer said. (and Lil)  :cool:  :cool:
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#16 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:41 PM

Una Salus Lillius, on Jul 15 2003, 02:03 AM, said:

'Tis a good thing you included that last sentance.  Otherwise I was going to have to mock you. :p

:ninja:
The case though is strong enough that with a slick lawyer a case could be made that in some areas you that the banning of driving would be sufficient to severely hamper the mobility of people enough to infringe on liberty.  We do still have areas with no public transportation, no taxis, and no neighbors to call for a life.  Though those areas are going to be fairly isolated situations and not be anywhere near urban areas.    

So  :p  Lil. ;)
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#17 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 01:54 PM

:p to you.

I seriously doubt any California Superior Court would buy such a tortured and convoluted argument and even if they did I doubt seriously it would be upheld on appeal.

There are already State required intrusions when it comes to driving, such as required seatbelts, baby seating and restrictions on inbibing of controlled substances.  There is PLENTY of precedent in the law to support a restriction that affects driving where it's directly linked to a health issue.  And the ban that's being proposed would NOT ban cars but only one particular kind of automobile so don't talk to me about "mobility".

:p

Lil
Posted Image

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 02:31 PM

kimmer, on Jul 15 2003, 02:05 AM, said:

Two, there is a safety issue involved. Hit me while I cross the sidewalk here in town with your avg. vehicle, and I might have some major broken bones. Hit me with your 5,200 pound (when empty) SUV, and I'm likely to have major internal injuries and die. Okay - so that's a conjecture on my part, but the weight issue of the SUV, and the rollover issue are REAL:
There is also a safety issue in regards to driver overconfidence and how SUVs handle in the snow.  People seem to forget that just because SUVs can get going to unsafe speeds in bad weather doesn’t mean that they will stop when they need to.  I drive all over upstate New York during the winter in often well foul weather conditions.  The largest percentage of car accidents I see during the winter is SUVs rather than cars.  It is rather silly when I pass 7 or 8 SUVs off the road with my little front wheel drive…
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 02:39 PM

:p :p to you.  ;)

Quote

Lil:
I seriously doubt any California Superior Court would buy such a tortured and convoluted argument and even if they did I doubt seriously it would be upheld on appeal.

I expect no less from the legal system of the PRC. ;)

Quote

Lil: There are already State required intrusions when it comes to driving, such as required seatbelts, baby seating and restrictions on inbibing of controlled substances. 

None of them take away the capability to travel though they just add restrictions for public safety.  We have similar restrictions on all of the basic freedoms including the freedom of speech.  Last time I checked freedom of expression isn’t so absolute that it allows you to trigger a false fire alarm in a building.  


Quote

Lil: And the ban that's being proposed would NOT ban cars but only one particular kind of automobile so don't talk to me about "mobility".

Many regions can only be reached via 4x4 and as much as I loathe SUVs they are 4x4s.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 02:57 PM

^

And in any competent court, those arguments would be laughed right out.

In any case, not all 4x4s are SUV's.  So again, :p

You've convinced me about as much as Bush has convinced me of his altruistic motives in Iraq, which is to say, not at all.


Lil

Edited by Una Salus Lillius, 15 July 2003 - 02:58 PM.

Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: California, SUV ban, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users