All Hank, all the time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I have even more disdain for Priuses. Why? Because many states (at least around here) give them carte blanche for the HOV lanes. They use gas. They take up space and cause congestion. They don't get that much better fuel mileage than some other econo-boxes. Yet they get to use the HOV lanes? Suck it. And DC can suck it more for giving them tax-free registration. Everyone else pays 7% of purchase price and they get in free? Suck that.

I can understand why states might want to give incentives to consumers to buy Priuses over equally gas-efficient cars using traditional technology, as a way to promote alternative technology that is, in the long run, more promising. But the HOV lane thing is a huge mistake -- it made sense when none of these cars are on the road, but as more and more of them are out there, it makes the commute worse for people who are actually carpooling. And Priuses in particular don't seem to need incentives, since there's a real waiting time to get one.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And Priuses in particular don't seem to need incentives, since there's a real waiting time to get one.

Although I wonder if the waiting list would be so long if they didn't get the preference. I know at least two people who bought them specifically for that reason, and have other cars for non-commuting driving. I'll give credit to my neighbors--they bought one I presume because they wanted to look green.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Huh? This I don't understand.

I never anywhere argued for a ban. I gave my reasons why I dislike the proliferation of SUVs. I would dissuade their use in two ways. 1) Impose gas taxes that accurately reflected harm to the environment (which, in fact they may already) as well as damage to roads (this is harder to measure, but one 6000lb SUV does more than double the damage of two 3000lb cars). 2) Make sure that insurance rates accurately reflect the harm SUVs cause to others and tax that harm to the SUV owner.

If people want to pay the price, that's fine. But as shifter points out, one of the reasons why SUVs are popular (or were) is because they are "more car for the money", which is to say, they have lower costs for the amount of car because of byzantine regulation.

ETA: Lest you think I'm an enviro junkie, I just reread the thread title. I have even more disdain for Priuses. Why? Because many states (at least around here) give them carte blanche for the HOV lanes. They use gas. They take up space and cause congestion. They don't get that much better fuel mileage than some other econo-boxes. Yet they get to use the HOV lanes? Suck it. And DC can suck it more for giving them tax-free registration. Everyone else pays 7% of purchase price and they get in free? Suck that.

If you acccept that sort of soft regulation, then we should also be able to tax Domino's Pizza, or people who commute instead of take the train, for damaging roads more than others. Why should I pay more tax for my SUV (when I only drive to the train and the few miles around my home) than a car driver who commutes 50 miles a day? Your dissuading techniques are far too simplistic to ever be sensibly implemented.

Trying to tweak people's behaviors leads to exactly the sort of damging behavior you note about the Priuses.

The limited (and I agree, absurd) tax break Shifty cited does not make the case that an SUV is more car for the money. Their lower costs have always been outweighed by higher costs of maintenance and repair (if you owned a shift on the fly 4X4 in the 80s and early 90s, you understand the "new transmisssion at 60k miles" rule that applied). If anything, it was less car in return for the privilege of not worrying about anything come Winter (or, as I noted earlier, waiting in line to leave a stadium).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a rational argument? Do you really believe that at the airport race, religion and national origin should not be a factor on whom they choose for a more thorough search?

Do you believe it is possible to make it a factor that does not become the only factor?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If you acccept that sort of soft regulation, then we should also be able to tax Domino's Pizza, or people who commute instead of take the train, for damaging roads more than others. Why should I pay more tax for my SUV (when I only drive to the train and the few miles around my home) than a car driver who commutes 50 miles a day? Your dissuading techniques are far too simplistic to ever be sensibly implemented.
.

A gas tax fairly distinguishes by the amount of miles driven. And heavier trucks pay higher road use taxes. hardly a novel concept

Why are we taxing dominos pizza? For the same reason we tax cigarettes highly? To pay for the health care costs?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
One tried. Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a nonlinear thought?

I don't think you know what that word means.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If you acccept that sort of soft regulation, then we should also be able to tax Domino's Pizza, or people who commute instead of take the train, for damaging roads more than others. Why should I pay more tax for my SUV (when I only drive to the train and the few miles around my home) than a car driver who commutes 50 miles a day? Your dissuading techniques are far too simplistic to ever be sensibly implemented.

Do you know there are taxes on gas?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The limited (and I agree, absurd) tax break Shifty cited does not make the case that an SUV is more car for the money.

I didn't click on Shifty's link, but assumed he was talking about federal regulations that make it much less expensive to build pick-ups and SUVs because they don't have to meet the same safety and mileage requirements. The original intent was to exempt farmers and ranchers who actually used trucks as trucks, but the regulations morphed into a way to protect Detroit from the Japanese. It's terrible public policy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A gas tax fairly distinguishes by the amount of miles driven. And heavier trucks pay higher road use taxes. hardly a novel concept

Why are we taxing dominos pizza? For the same reason we tax cigarettes highly? To pay for the health care costs?

1. True. But don't we already have a blind gas tax?

2. Domino's uses roadways as part of its business to an extent far above the average driver.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
One might say the same to all non-Arab males. Think about it.

Absolutely. I know when I board a plane I might be subject to a search. If I don't want to be thoroughly searched I don't have to fly a commercial jet. The issue is not who gets searched and who doesn't, the issue is who gets searched more often.

The issue is also not using racial or national origin profiling vs. other profiling, it is whether you ad it to your tools for trying to keep planes from being hijacked and blown up.

My mother, a 75 year old caucasian women, has had her hip replaced. She set off all the buzzers and so she got a more thorough search. She was incensed about it and kept yelling that it was her hip (this was her first trip using the new hip). Since she complained she got an even more thorough search. I told her they did exactly what they should have done. They can't take her word that it is a metal hip. The buzzers go off and they have to do something about it. I have also been told that when someone has got something to hide they are the first ones to complain. So once she started complaining she hit another profile and bang, even more thoroughly search. If she doesn't like it she can find another way to travel. But I am sure some liberal out there thinks it is discrimination that people with artificial joints (which means mostly old people) get searched more thoroughly. It is ageist or some such nonesense.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. True. But don't we already have a blind gas tax?

2. Domino's uses roadways as part of its business to an extent far above the average driver.

All the Dominos delivery cars I see are little tin cans that even I could probably lift up.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


2. Domino's uses roadways as part of its business to an extent far above the average driver.

nd they charge a delivery fee to cover their increased gas costs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you know there are taxes on gas?

The next thing you know, someone will try to make you pay to use particular roads or bridges.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
All the Dominos delivery cars I see are little tin cans that even I could probably lift up.

Please. You wouldn't bother. If you got one of those in your sights, you'd hit the driver for his pizza. and then go back to the store and get his next delivery.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Any of your brain cells ever wrapped itself around a rational argument? Do you really believe that at the airport race, religion and national origin should not be a factor on whom they choose for a more thorough search?

As long as there are people like you in this world, no, I don't. I htink the danger is too great. An easy alternative is to search everyone.