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

#21 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 15 July 2003 - 04:35 PM

Quote

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.

I hate SUVs, too, but will note that I unfortunately witnessed a pedestrian get hit by a relatively light one at a bad intersection a few years back; allegedly, she survived. (I was riding in a car, heard squealing brakes, thought "Ooh, bad, is that going to hit us?" then saw a body go flying. I couldn't imagine her surviving, but...)

I'm not defending SUVs here, just noting an exception to the rule, much as it pains me to do so. :unsure:
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#22 GiGi

GiGi

    Lipstick wearing PIG kisser!

  • Islander
  • 8,774 posts

Posted 16 July 2003 - 07:17 AM

Right after 9/11 we had a fatal accident in our neighborhood.  A woman in an SUV plowed into a van, going over 50mph in a 25 mph zone.  Two girls in their early teens were in the back seat with seat belts on and were still killed instantly.

People driving in SUVs tend to think themselves invicible and therefore do not take care when driving.  Not everyone of course.

But anyway, looking at the article, I do not see where it says they are thinking of banning SUVs in California.  It looks like they are saying that they are not going to use them as state vehicles in order to set a good example in hopes others choose less polluting cars to drive also.  As with a lot of reporting hte headline is sensationalized to get attention.

So unless I am missing something, a lot of the points in this thread are moot.

In the eighties when there were gas shortages many cars were made to be a lot more fuel effiecent than even what we have today.  How strange for things to go backwards!!
"Life is as dear to a mute creature as it is to man. Just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do all creatures." -- HH The Dalai Lama

#23 Norville

Norville
  • Islander
  • 4,501 posts

Posted 16 July 2003 - 08:22 AM

Quote

People driving in SUVs tend to think themselves invicible and therefore do not take care when driving.

Just yesterday, there was a horrendous accident in San Francisco that proved that SUVs can be destroyed, too. A tow truck went out of control on an upper deck, plowed through a guard rail, and fell onto the freeway below, smashing an SUV flat and killing everyone involved.

So, if you've got vehicles falling out of the air on top of you, no, SUVs are no safer than a regular car...
"The dew has fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
- Marvin the Paranoid Android, "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy"

Rules for Surviving an Autocracy
Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.
- Masha Gessen
http://www.nybooks.c...s-for-survival/

#24 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 16 July 2003 - 08:32 AM

So, where will California draw the line between "Sport-Utility Vehicle" and other, large vehicles, like full-size vans, mini-vans, and pick-ups? Pick-up trucks don't get better gas mileage as a rule, and aren't necessarily better at emissions, but they're generally not categorized as SUV's. (Though they have the same function for many people.) And what about those smaller SUVs that are almost, but not quite, station-wagons. Like that Aztec thingy that they were always advertising during "Survivor"?

This proposal is a Pandora's Box.

Edited by Drew, 16 July 2003 - 08:33 AM.

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

#25 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 16 July 2003 - 09:02 AM

Drew, on Jul 15 2003, 02:25 PM, said:

This proposal is a Pandora's Box.
:eek:

I couldn't agree more!
Posted Image

#26 EChatty

EChatty

    Lurker Extaordinaire

  • SuperMod
  • 22,744 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 05:04 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Jul 14 2003, 09:34 PM, said:

We do still have areas with no public transportation, no taxis, and no neighbors to call for a life.
Not to make light of this or anything, but since when do I have to call my neighbor for a life?? :D  :lol:  :devil:

#27 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:18 AM

Quote

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.

SUV's tend to get less in mileage, but pollution wise, they aren't really any worse then anything else with an internal combustion engine. There is no real answer that will help abate pollution but less driving for everyone. And that is mainly Ozone.
Can't Touch This!!

#28 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:21 AM

The right infringed wouldn't be the right to drive an SUV. It would be the right to spend your money as you see fit, which includes buying an SUV if that's what you want. It's not up to anyone else; you don't need their approval and it doesn't need to make sense to them. In the USA, the right to spend your money as you want is EVERYTHING. Infringements on it and on vehicles, such as weapon laws and seatbelt laws, are to protect people. Show me how SUVs (as opposed to SUV drivers) harm people, and I'll consider being for it... like maybe in L.A.'s valley where the pollution just collects and sits there...

#29 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:27 AM

Quote

The right infringed wouldn't be the right to drive an SUV. It would be the right to spend your money as you see fit, which includes buying an SUV if that's what you want

Not so.

The government can and DOES restrict what people can spend their money on.  Kids aren't allowed to buy liquor or cigarettes.  

If you take this argument to its logical conclusion then the government has no right to prevent you from spending your money on say, marijuana.  Or an automatic rifle.  Or heroin.  Or crack.
Posted Image

#30 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:32 AM

I see you just did another of your patented "Anything Delvo writes must be crap" prejudgements and didn't read the post I wrote...

#31 Bad Wolf

Bad Wolf

    Luck is when opportunity meets preparation

  • Islander
  • 38,881 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:35 AM

I DID read your post.

Geez I even quoted you!

You're wrong.  The *right* to spend your money as you see fit is very limitable.

And, as I've made clear REPEATEDLY in this thread, I DON'T disagree that the idea of banning SUV's is IDIOTIC.

That doesn't change the fact that what you said about the "right to spend money" was incorrect.

:wacko:
Posted Image

#32 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:35 AM

Actually, Delv, Lil's response was the same thing I was thinking. The Gov't already regulates how we can and can't spend our money. And sometimes this varies from state to state. (Fireworks, for example.)

I think this is a cynical "feel-good" solution intended to make the SUV-haters happy, but doesn't really solve anything in the long run.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#33 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 06:55 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Jul 14 2003, 07:44 PM, said:

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.
Keep in mind that "real 4x4s", including civilian Hummers, are also SUVS (at least when they're not trucks), and that "SUV" includes some serious 4x4 machines as well as the yuppymobiles most people now think of under that term. In one forest ecology research project I've worked on, we used Jeep Cherokees from before they started getting luxurified and when they still looked and acted like "jeeps" were supposed to (like having a stiff and unluxurious but sturdy suspension). Those were the perfect vehicle for the terrain, and something else like them would now still be the only reasonable replacement.

Quote

The fuel mileage really isn’t much worse than many of your larger SUVs and you are burning diesel instead.
Mostly, that's not the case, and for those vehicles about which you CAN say that, yes, the mileage IS that much worse, because it's only on really heavy vehicles that diesel takes over as the only way to go.

Quote

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.
Diesel isn't necessarily cleaner than gasoline, and even in those engines in which it is pretty clean (which typically aren't the big heavy ones), it's still not enough of a difference to overcome the 6-9 miles per gallon you get from that weight. Also, those things are too wide, too long, too heavy, and too wide to be practical for such work. A little Jeep Cherokee will tread lighter and maneuver better in tighter spaces in the hills and forests, and they've gotten me into and out of many places a HMMWV or Hummer would never get. HMMWVs were tested in rocky barren desert terrain and chosen among the competition based on those results. They represent a sacrifice of some off-road performance measures for steep slope gripping and body interchangibility and high weight limit and such... and a sacrifice of fuel efficiency for almost anything and everything else. Also, for the cost of one of those, you can get 2 or 3 "normal" civilian 4x4s.

The HMMWV is a great vehicle in several ways. But no vehicle is universal, and I think our armed forces made a mistake in trying to take a particular kind of specialized vehicle and treat it as universal.

Edited by Delvo, 07 August 2004 - 03:12 PM.


#34 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 07:00 AM

Drew, on Jul 16 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

Actually, Delv, Lil's response was the same thing I was thinking. The Gov't already regulates how we can and can't spend our money. And sometimes this varies from state to state. (Fireworks, for example.)
Then you, like her, didn't read the part where I ALREADY ADDRESSED the restriction of that freedom for people's safety, thus already achnowledging that the right has clearly always ended where people's safety begins!

#35 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 07:03 AM

Delvo, on Jul 16 2003, 02:53 PM, said:

Drew, on Jul 16 2003, 01:28 PM, said:

Actually, Delv, Lil's response was the same thing I was thinking. The Gov't already regulates how we can and can't spend our money. And sometimes this varies from state to state. (Fireworks, for example.)
Then you, like her, didn't read the part where I ALREADY ADDRESSED the restriction of that freedom for people's safety, thus already achnowledging that the right has clearly always ended where people's safety begins!
Oh, calm down. You don't need ALL CAPS and exclamation points!!!! I'm not your enemy. It just wasn't clear from your original post.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#36 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 07:46 AM

I don't see the problem here.

Let them ban SUVs. How are they going to enforce it? Let's see.

The EPA? Please.
Cops? Yeah, they've got nothing better to do in California.
The military? No way. Posse comitatus.
Some nebulous state organization specifically created for the purpose? Money out of the state budget.

Yeah, it works on paper. But the buck stops there. So I wouldn't get worked up about it. This is nothing more than ideology, and it'd never work in practice.

(Although if it did, I'm going to have to put all my money in SUV dealerships in Nevada, 'cause they're going to make a killing with the interstate sales!)

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#37 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,147 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 08:13 AM

I work for Enviromental Protection in West Virginia. We had two four wheel drives, a mini van, and some cars. I used a car every day, to deliever mail and pick up packages, supplies and the like, and inspectors mostly used cars, taking four wheel drives to the hardest to reach places. Some of the strip mines, and Coal Prep Plants are in oujt of the way spots.

A couple of months ago, the Governor ordered all agencies to reduce their fleets by 10%. DEP's Secratary, a cabnet position in state government, decided that we needed more four wheel drives, so we returned all of our cars, and kept FWD's. I work at Air. we reduced our fleet 10%, but because we traded everything for FWD's, our lease costs increased 30% and gas milage went for somewhere between 25-30 mpg for my Contour, to about 15 mpg four the jeeps that I have been driving. I was asigned a full size van. It's not FWD, but it has a 350, so it is lucky to get 15 mpg. It's money down a rat hole for us. We were doing fine with the FWD's we had, but now the Enviroment Agency for WV burns twice as much gas as it did a few weeks ago.
Can't Touch This!!

#38 Kimmer

Kimmer
  • Islander
  • 6,388 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 08:56 AM

the'Hawk, on Jul 16 2003, 01:39 PM, said:

I don't see the problem here.

Let them ban SUVs. How are they going to enforce it? Let's see.

The EPA? Please.
Cops? Yeah, they've got nothing better to do in California.
What cops? We are firing CHP, State Police, Correctional Officers (who fill in behind the first two in emergencies); and locally my council is firing fireman and policeman - but keeping the local pool open.

#39 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 09:15 AM

the'Hawk, on Jul 16 2003, 01:39 PM, said:

I don't see the problem here.

Let them ban SUVs. How are they going to enforce it? Let's see.

The EPA? Please.
Cops? Yeah, they've got nothing better to do in California.
The military? No way. Posse comitatus.
Some nebulous state organization specifically created for the purpose? Money out of the state budget.

Yeah, it works on paper. But the buck stops there. So I wouldn't get worked up about it. This is nothing more than ideology, and it'd never work in practice.

(Although if it did, I'm going to have to put all my money in SUV dealerships in Nevada, 'cause they're going to make a killing with the interstate sales!)

:cool:
But, you see, in California if you get caught driving an unregistered car you can not only get a ticket and a stiff fine, they can tow your car away. :p :p

So if they make them illegal, they just don't license them. Not many folks are going to roll the dice and drive an unregistered vehicle for very long since they toughened the law.
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

#40 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 17 July 2003 - 03:07 PM

Rhea, on Jul 16 2003, 06:08 PM, said:

But, you see, in California if you get caught driving an unregistered car you can not only get a ticket and a stiff fine, they can tow your car away.
Well, heaven forfend. ;)

Honestly, though, I would hope that they have bigger fish to fry than the driving of unlicensed vehicles. Sounds like something to do on a long weekend, rather than a consistent practice.

Besides which, the sheer logistics of stripping every Californian SUV owner of their property, presumably recompensing them by some means, and then paying to have them all hauled away to some Nevada proving ground or wherever for proper disposal.... it just makes my head hurt. And it just smells like graft all-freakin'-ready. Not to mention that you just KNOW someone's going to get a lawyer and take this to court. Then it'll be a voluntary recall of ALL the SUVs in California, which will basically amount to a law which is lax in tooth and claw.

So yeah. Works on paper. For now.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK



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