Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
Fishyfanatic said:
Sore about gas prices REad on...
- Thread starter dralarms
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
With my girl being 1 years old next week Im a good study on car seat safty.
# Your baby should be in a rear-facing position from birth until he or she has reached at least 1 year of age and weighs a minimum of 22 pounds, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
# Your child should be in a forward-facing car seat until he or she is approximately 40 lbs.
# Your child should then be in a booster seat until he or she is 80 lbs.
# It is recommended that children under the age of 12 should sit in the back seat.
http://www.safety1st.com/product.asp?productID=647
We have two of these car seats. We wanted this seat for several reasons but the biggeest one is that this one will grow with our child. No need to buy 3 specific car seats when one flexable one will do the job. One for my car and one for my wifes. We both have what I consiter small cars. Mine is a two door Chevy Cav 2003 and my wifes is a four door Saturn Ion 2003. It was a challenge to get the car seat in the back of my car from the passenger side and thats the one where the front seat slides forward.
When ever we take our child on a trip thats more than a one day affair we know that if we have a second child we MUST get a SUV or minivan. The amount of stuff that one has to take along with a kid and yourselves is to much for a medium or small car to hold and expect to be able to bring anything back. Before SUV's you had BIG cars. Now a days the largest car is still small compaired to some of the beasts that used to traval the roads.
Blanket responses like "get a smaller car" or "drive less" or "carpool" its always the answer. If your in a position where you dont NEED a larger capacity car then by all means consiter a smaller more fuel economy version. If you are one to get board and just dive around town then I suggest you find something else to do like take a walk or ride a bike instead but some already drive as little as possible and the distances we do drive are required. Finally carpooling should be encouraged but alot of us dont have the flexability of jumping on mass transit or commuting to and from work with a group of folks whom work and live close to eachother.
And the absolute best no brainer comment I have heard is to get a job closer to your house. Well to that I say by all means if you want to make that contrabution then go right ahead. Many of us including myself have a talent set where we cant just score a job within 5 miles of our home and moving closer to our work is not a viable option either.
Right now our house is about half way between my and my wifes work. We go to work in opposite directions.
There are a few things that should have happend years ago that would have limited todays price impact on oil. First, there is a limited number of gas processing plants in the US. The refinery that blew up in TX was one of those that processed gas for cars. Now that its out of production there is a greater demand on the other processing plants that for the most part are all old and aging fast. We need to build new refineries and more refineries as our demand for gas increases due to population growth, etc we need more capacity. Second, emerging countries like china are using up more and more oil every year. Just 10 years ago the oil consumption in chinia was only a small % of what it is now and their consumption will only rise. Efforts need to be made to have countries like chinia become more efficent with their use of fuel. If that means giving them technology then so be it. Its all for the greater good of the world after all. Finally we should increase our domestic oil pumping efforts. The recent senate approval to drill in the alaska tunra will help but it will be several years before we will see the first drop of oil from that area.
I remember when gas was under a $1 and anything above a $1 was high way robbery for gas. Now I consiter myself lucky to find it under $2.10. How does this affect the average joe. It greatly reduces the spendable income after bills and I can tell you the average joe's employeer isnt about to give a gas price pay increase to offset the costs of going to and from work.
# Your baby should be in a rear-facing position from birth until he or she has reached at least 1 year of age and weighs a minimum of 22 pounds, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
# Your child should be in a forward-facing car seat until he or she is approximately 40 lbs.
# Your child should then be in a booster seat until he or she is 80 lbs.
# It is recommended that children under the age of 12 should sit in the back seat.
http://www.safety1st.com/product.asp?productID=647
We have two of these car seats. We wanted this seat for several reasons but the biggeest one is that this one will grow with our child. No need to buy 3 specific car seats when one flexable one will do the job. One for my car and one for my wifes. We both have what I consiter small cars. Mine is a two door Chevy Cav 2003 and my wifes is a four door Saturn Ion 2003. It was a challenge to get the car seat in the back of my car from the passenger side and thats the one where the front seat slides forward.
When ever we take our child on a trip thats more than a one day affair we know that if we have a second child we MUST get a SUV or minivan. The amount of stuff that one has to take along with a kid and yourselves is to much for a medium or small car to hold and expect to be able to bring anything back. Before SUV's you had BIG cars. Now a days the largest car is still small compaired to some of the beasts that used to traval the roads.
Blanket responses like "get a smaller car" or "drive less" or "carpool" its always the answer. If your in a position where you dont NEED a larger capacity car then by all means consiter a smaller more fuel economy version. If you are one to get board and just dive around town then I suggest you find something else to do like take a walk or ride a bike instead but some already drive as little as possible and the distances we do drive are required. Finally carpooling should be encouraged but alot of us dont have the flexability of jumping on mass transit or commuting to and from work with a group of folks whom work and live close to eachother.
And the absolute best no brainer comment I have heard is to get a job closer to your house. Well to that I say by all means if you want to make that contrabution then go right ahead. Many of us including myself have a talent set where we cant just score a job within 5 miles of our home and moving closer to our work is not a viable option either.
Right now our house is about half way between my and my wifes work. We go to work in opposite directions.
There are a few things that should have happend years ago that would have limited todays price impact on oil. First, there is a limited number of gas processing plants in the US. The refinery that blew up in TX was one of those that processed gas for cars. Now that its out of production there is a greater demand on the other processing plants that for the most part are all old and aging fast. We need to build new refineries and more refineries as our demand for gas increases due to population growth, etc we need more capacity. Second, emerging countries like china are using up more and more oil every year. Just 10 years ago the oil consumption in chinia was only a small % of what it is now and their consumption will only rise. Efforts need to be made to have countries like chinia become more efficent with their use of fuel. If that means giving them technology then so be it. Its all for the greater good of the world after all. Finally we should increase our domestic oil pumping efforts. The recent senate approval to drill in the alaska tunra will help but it will be several years before we will see the first drop of oil from that area.
I remember when gas was under a $1 and anything above a $1 was high way robbery for gas. Now I consiter myself lucky to find it under $2.10. How does this affect the average joe. It greatly reduces the spendable income after bills and I can tell you the average joe's employeer isnt about to give a gas price pay increase to offset the costs of going to and from work.
We HAD friends like that. Notice the word had. After you have a child you find out alot about the people you assocate with on a personal level. Those who see a child as a fith wheel usually get dropped off by the way side as other friends emerge that dont mind children or have some themselves.
QTOFFER
Aquarium Advice Addict
Gasoline prices are driven by the cost of crude oil, which itself is driven by global free market forces over which the consumer has no control (OPEC policy, supply, global demand, refinery output, market speculation, etc). About 1/3 of the price at the pump is due to federal and state taxes.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/primer/primer.htm
It's easy to blame the Arabs and the oil companies for rising gas prices, but they are only part of the cause. Blame also lies with the rapid industrialization of China and our own resurging economy (both raise global demand). Americans will always be forced to REACT to gas prices until the federal government gets its act together and implements a coherent energy policy. Right now, any semblance of an energy policy is administered by the states - a hodgepodge of guidelines and regulations that do little to buffer the consumer from fluctuating energy costs.
The way things are now, fuel prices rise to the point where people really start to take notice and react (shunning SUVs, driving less, lowering the thermostat, insulating the house, etc). OPEC, fearing that we may grow less dependent on their product, lowers prices by raising production. We then obligingly slip back into energy use complacency until prices creep higher and start the cycle again.
I think the federal government should maintain a stockpile of crude oil and gasoline (SEPARATE from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – that’s there for times of war). They should use this stockpile to take the edge off price spikes of home heating oil and gasoline. By buying low and selling high, the stockpile should at the very least break even, and not cost the govt money to maintain.
I don’t think that ANY non-commercial passenger vehicle that gets less than 20 MPG should be allowed on the road. The govt should slowly implement a minimum passenger vehicle fuel efficiency of 20 MPG over the course of several years. With the proper legal/economic prodding, auto manufacturers could, and would produce a 4WD SUV that gets 20 MPG. Owners of fuel-inefficient vehicles should pay more in registration fees, while owners of fuel efficient or hybrid vehicles should receive some kind of tax credit.
I drive 350 miles a week just to go to work. It costs me about $29 a week at today’s gas prices. I think it’s obscene that the same commute by public transportation would cost me well over $200 a month. And I live in NYC, where the mass transportation system is well developed and funded. In most American towns and cities, the closest thing they have to mass transit is a small fleet of taxis. This has got to change. At the very least, parking at mass transit hubs should be free and plentiful. Mass transit costs should also be fully tax deductible at all levels.
High fuel prices are a problem that will not go away by ignoring them and waiting for the market to sort itself out. Fuel costs affect all of us, even those of us who don’t own cars – we all pay higher consumer prices due to rising shipping costs.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/oil_gas/primer/primer.htm
It's easy to blame the Arabs and the oil companies for rising gas prices, but they are only part of the cause. Blame also lies with the rapid industrialization of China and our own resurging economy (both raise global demand). Americans will always be forced to REACT to gas prices until the federal government gets its act together and implements a coherent energy policy. Right now, any semblance of an energy policy is administered by the states - a hodgepodge of guidelines and regulations that do little to buffer the consumer from fluctuating energy costs.
The way things are now, fuel prices rise to the point where people really start to take notice and react (shunning SUVs, driving less, lowering the thermostat, insulating the house, etc). OPEC, fearing that we may grow less dependent on their product, lowers prices by raising production. We then obligingly slip back into energy use complacency until prices creep higher and start the cycle again.
I think the federal government should maintain a stockpile of crude oil and gasoline (SEPARATE from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve – that’s there for times of war). They should use this stockpile to take the edge off price spikes of home heating oil and gasoline. By buying low and selling high, the stockpile should at the very least break even, and not cost the govt money to maintain.
I don’t think that ANY non-commercial passenger vehicle that gets less than 20 MPG should be allowed on the road. The govt should slowly implement a minimum passenger vehicle fuel efficiency of 20 MPG over the course of several years. With the proper legal/economic prodding, auto manufacturers could, and would produce a 4WD SUV that gets 20 MPG. Owners of fuel-inefficient vehicles should pay more in registration fees, while owners of fuel efficient or hybrid vehicles should receive some kind of tax credit.
I drive 350 miles a week just to go to work. It costs me about $29 a week at today’s gas prices. I think it’s obscene that the same commute by public transportation would cost me well over $200 a month. And I live in NYC, where the mass transportation system is well developed and funded. In most American towns and cities, the closest thing they have to mass transit is a small fleet of taxis. This has got to change. At the very least, parking at mass transit hubs should be free and plentiful. Mass transit costs should also be fully tax deductible at all levels.
High fuel prices are a problem that will not go away by ignoring them and waiting for the market to sort itself out. Fuel costs affect all of us, even those of us who don’t own cars – we all pay higher consumer prices due to rising shipping costs.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
fishfreek said:
Only one problem there - the oil industry is an oligopoly and not a true competitive market. There's a few major players and massive barriers to entry into the market. Couple that with the fact that we don't have a reasonable substitute for oil in most cases and you have a sector that NEEDS to be regulated by the government.
The problem with an oligopoly is that the most efficient level of production for the company is not the most efficient level for the public (as it would be in a competitive market). In this case, one company CAN influence the market value for it's own product. If one major player decides to double it's production, and in the process increase it's marginal and capital costs, while simultaneously reducing the market value of it's product by half, why do it? The answer is that they don't. The oil companies are very happy with the prices right where they are.
If you're interested in the greater good, you're in the wrong country I'm afraid.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
Good points QT.
I actually want a "curb weight tax" along with your standard plate fees. Any amount your vehicle weighs over 4,000 lbs is taxed at $1 per pound - meaning the proud owner of a new Ford Excursion would pony up about $4,000 per year in extra taxes to drive that behemoth on our streets.
The deductions people get for buying fuel-efficient vehicles are pitiful, but that's a tough road. Any amount of subsidy is just going to show up on the pricetag - the same as what's happened to health care. If the market value of an electric car is $15,000 but the government provides a $5,000 subsidy, the market value will simply rise by some amount between $1-$5,000, depending on the elasticity of the market of course.
I actually want a "curb weight tax" along with your standard plate fees. Any amount your vehicle weighs over 4,000 lbs is taxed at $1 per pound - meaning the proud owner of a new Ford Excursion would pony up about $4,000 per year in extra taxes to drive that behemoth on our streets.
The deductions people get for buying fuel-efficient vehicles are pitiful, but that's a tough road. Any amount of subsidy is just going to show up on the pricetag - the same as what's happened to health care. If the market value of an electric car is $15,000 but the government provides a $5,000 subsidy, the market value will simply rise by some amount between $1-$5,000, depending on the elasticity of the market of course.
Fishyfanatic
Aquarium Advice Addict
The problem with taxing cars based on their weight or gas mileage is that not everyone is the same. A family of 6 can't drive a little Dodge Neon. They need a larger vehicle that probably won't get that great of gas mileage. PLUS, when my brother had his old truck, it got about 10 mpg. It was all that he could afford (big honkin truck) to buy. He didn't drive more than 8,000 miles a year because he worked 14 hours a day. So why should he be taxed a greater amount of money just because he has a larger truck that he uses in his job (farmer, needs a truck that's big with power)? He already has to pay for alot more gas than the average person, so why should he have to pay an ADDITIONAL tax. It just doesn't make sense. Taxing someone just because they don't have a car that gets great gas mileage is not the plan. Older vehicles don't get good gas mileage but that doesn't mean that we should ban them from the streets or make the owners poor by taking their money for taxes.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
Fishyfanatic said:
Actually, that's exactly the plan. A tax is a disincentive, a subsidy is an incentive. Taxing high fuel consumption or subsidizing low fuel consumption accomplishes the same task.
I'm sure that every person who owns an 8,000 lb SUV can come up with every reason in the world he NEEDS it and shouldn't be taxed. If we aksed everyone to please pitch in based on their level of consumption, at their own discretion, the total amount collected would be zero.
People with kids are already reaping large tax breaks, even though they're consuming a greater piece of the collective resources. I could complain about that I guess...
Fishyfanatic
Aquarium Advice Addict
One of my co-workers has 4 kids who are between the ages of 8 and 15. She has to haul them around all the time to baseball practices, religion classes, volleyball games, 4H meetings, school, recitles, everything. This includes sports equipment, farm animals (chickens and ducks in cages), other students/friends, music instruments. We were just talking about this and she said that she COULD get rid of her SUV and drive a car like mine (04 2 door GrandAm) BUT then she would have to take multiple trips to get things to the places where they need to go. Therefore she would make two trips to the baseball game, using just as much if not more gas in the process. What does this solve? Nothing.
Thinking of a way to punish people for driving their cars is not black and white. Why should Suzie Q Soccer Mom be penalized because she is the one who carpools the neighborhood kids to school and soccer practice? She has to have a bigger vehicle. Therefore, she has to pay more money in taxes in addition to gas and insurance?
Come on, give me a break. This is on topic that I'm sure everyone is going to disagree on. There is not a right or wrong answer, just opinion.
Thinking of a way to punish people for driving their cars is not black and white. Why should Suzie Q Soccer Mom be penalized because she is the one who carpools the neighborhood kids to school and soccer practice? She has to have a bigger vehicle. Therefore, she has to pay more money in taxes in addition to gas and insurance?
Come on, give me a break. This is on topic that I'm sure everyone is going to disagree on. There is not a right or wrong answer, just opinion.
Supply and demand with regard to oil prices is a fact. A large part of the reason prices are rising, is we are competing with other industrializing nations for a finite supply of oil. China being the fastest growing oil consumer.
Just like JFK made it a national priority to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s, so too should George Bush make it a national priority to rid ourselves of oil dependancy by the end of this decade. The sad truth is, our economic future depends on it. We can't keep absorbing the price of oil without harming the country.
Just like JFK made it a national priority to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s, so too should George Bush make it a national priority to rid ourselves of oil dependancy by the end of this decade. The sad truth is, our economic future depends on it. We can't keep absorbing the price of oil without harming the country.
Fishyfanatic
Aquarium Advice Addict
Brian, I was referring to the "tax" that people should have to pay. I hope my comment didn't come across as the countries dependency on oil is just an opinion.
It didn't come across that way at all Fishyfanatic. I think using any tax as form of punishment is both counterproductive and harmful. It's inflationary and puts people out of work. It also limits our freedom of choice. Hmmm. How would you feel about paying $1 per gallon tax on your energy consuming 150 gallon tank. I'm being facetious, not picking on you. 
IMO we have the technology to make oil consumption for energy a thing of the past. What we're lacking is a cohesive energy policy and the will of our leadership to get it done. QTOFFER is right on. I hope it doesn't take a complete economic collapse to wake up the politicians.
IMO we have the technology to make oil consumption for energy a thing of the past. What we're lacking is a cohesive energy policy and the will of our leadership to get it done. QTOFFER is right on. I hope it doesn't take a complete economic collapse to wake up the politicians.
G
Guest
Guest
Nobody forced her to have 4 kids, that was her choice. Life is full of choices and some of them cost $$$.
Because she is using more gas, yes. It's not punishment. You use more gas, you pay more tax, pretty simple concept.
The problem with a penalty tax for consumption of oil is that it's in direct conflict with what this country is all about Paul. Our economy is consumer based and driven by demand for goods and services. A penalizing tax on oil will cripple us.
Oil is a finite resource. I'm not saying it should be wasted. What I am saying is that we shouldn't need the oil in the first place. I would love to see us as a free nation develop and utilize other sources to power our homes and vehicles. This would not only save the oil for the petrochemical industries, but leap frog the economy by creating a new consumer demand.
Right now we can power our homes with solar, wind, even nuclear. The problem is that there isn't enough demand to offset the costs of implementation. The demand should be created via tax incentives, not tax penalties.
Oil is a finite resource. I'm not saying it should be wasted. What I am saying is that we shouldn't need the oil in the first place. I would love to see us as a free nation develop and utilize other sources to power our homes and vehicles. This would not only save the oil for the petrochemical industries, but leap frog the economy by creating a new consumer demand.
Right now we can power our homes with solar, wind, even nuclear. The problem is that there isn't enough demand to offset the costs of implementation. The demand should be created via tax incentives, not tax penalties.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
There's no "penalties". Taxes are "disincentives". And I agree with corvus - No one forces people to have 20 kids. I'm assuming those people understand that those kids cost money before they start having them. As it is, people without kids in this country already support those with kids. So I'm not exactly "moved" by the argument that they need an 8,000 lb. battlewagon to take their 2 kids to soccer practice.
Yes, absolutely taxes hurt economic growth. ALL taxes are bad. Anytime people's money is spent by a third party, particularly the government ripe with corruption, it's bad. Taxes are necessary, unfortunately, and as long as they're necessary you might as well use them to encourage/discourage certain behaviors.
Yes, absolutely taxes hurt economic growth. ALL taxes are bad. Anytime people's money is spent by a third party, particularly the government ripe with corruption, it's bad. Taxes are necessary, unfortunately, and as long as they're necessary you might as well use them to encourage/discourage certain behaviors.
Well that's just fine Clown Monarch. Your 330w PC uses far more energy then most peoples single strip light. Now you want that lighting, but you really don't NEED it. Would you agree with taxing yourself for excessive power consumption? I mean afterall, you decided to use that much lighting.
How is it different with an automobile, or air conditioning ones home?
How is it different with an automobile, or air conditioning ones home?
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
BrianNY said:
By NOT taxing the use of oil, you are defeating your own objective to find other sources of power.
Your "consumer-driven" argument necessitates that consumers will, by economic law, use the energy source that's the cheapest and most convenient. In our case gasoline fits that bill. Suppliers have little incentive to research/supply alternative fuels because the demand for gasoline is high and the costs of substitutes are high. If we tax gasoline consumption/subsidize alternative fuels, the demand for gasoline falls while the demand for alternative fuels rises. This will cause suppliers to research/supply alternative fuels now that there's profit motive. It also facilitates a smoother transition between oil and alternative sources.
So, in a purely capitalistic society (where there are no taxes, incentives, or disincentives), NO ONE would research alternative fuels until the market value of oil rose high enough to justify using alternatives. No one would have any incentive to buy alternative fuel cars, and it wouldn't matter anyway because no supplier would have any incentive to produce them. In this scenario, by the time the price of oil made alternative fuel choices appealing, we'd be 20 years behind the technology curve for efficient production.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
BrianNY said:
The difference is that the coal required to produce the electricity for those lights is expected to last us another 40,000 years. Oil, on the other hand, may be economically useful for maybe 20-30 more years.
If they found it necessary to curb electrical usage by imposing more taxes on it, or subsidizing the use of alternative sources, I might erect some solar panels on top of my house. I actually would require very little incentive to do something like this.
Gas is a driving economic factor. Rase the costs fo gas to much either by normal supply/demand, or taxation and the economy WILL suffer. It will cost more to drive to stores, it will cost more to deliver products and the end result is less spending.
Clown from many of your responsees I get the feeling you dont have kids and until they reach levels of 5+ years the end result is needing to carry all kinds of extra stuff with you when you go on even the most simple trips. The 'family' car used to be a huge 4 door boat or a large 5 door station wagon but those have been replaced by mid and large sized SUV's. Ultimatly I expect both types got equivlent fuel economies.
Alternate fuel cars and trucks while being envioment friendly are not overly desirable to the mainstreem because of the lack of alternative fueling stations. The gas/electric hybrits that charge the batteries while on gas power are about the easiest alternative and I have yet to see advertised a large capacity car or SUV that is powered that way and the cost of the hybrid cars are much higher (at least the ones I have seen) than the equivlent gas only versions.
Its the classic chicken and egg issue where people wont buy large volumes of alternate fuel cars and trucks until there is ample fuling/recharging stations and companies wont invest millons and billions of dollars into building those fuling/recharging stations until there is a decent demand. So whos gonna leap first? The consumer buying something that they might have one or two fuling stations in their city and who knows what kind of availblity in other areas or investment firms to invest money to construct and develop alternate fuel stations when there is no real demand for them yet.
Ultimatly Gas is something that the consumer cant be without and has next to no control over as far as price. We all need it. Most of us need to purchase it and the only choice we have is the location we purchase it from. About the only thing we can truly do is inform our state and federal representives that we are disgruntled about the fuel costs and are interested in legislation to control fuel costs or incentivise alernate fuel research.
Clown from many of your responsees I get the feeling you dont have kids and until they reach levels of 5+ years the end result is needing to carry all kinds of extra stuff with you when you go on even the most simple trips. The 'family' car used to be a huge 4 door boat or a large 5 door station wagon but those have been replaced by mid and large sized SUV's. Ultimatly I expect both types got equivlent fuel economies.
Alternate fuel cars and trucks while being envioment friendly are not overly desirable to the mainstreem because of the lack of alternative fueling stations. The gas/electric hybrits that charge the batteries while on gas power are about the easiest alternative and I have yet to see advertised a large capacity car or SUV that is powered that way and the cost of the hybrid cars are much higher (at least the ones I have seen) than the equivlent gas only versions.
Its the classic chicken and egg issue where people wont buy large volumes of alternate fuel cars and trucks until there is ample fuling/recharging stations and companies wont invest millons and billions of dollars into building those fuling/recharging stations until there is a decent demand. So whos gonna leap first? The consumer buying something that they might have one or two fuling stations in their city and who knows what kind of availblity in other areas or investment firms to invest money to construct and develop alternate fuel stations when there is no real demand for them yet.
Ultimatly Gas is something that the consumer cant be without and has next to no control over as far as price. We all need it. Most of us need to purchase it and the only choice we have is the location we purchase it from. About the only thing we can truly do is inform our state and federal representives that we are disgruntled about the fuel costs and are interested in legislation to control fuel costs or incentivise alernate fuel research.
Clown Monarch
Aquarium Advice FINatic
I once owned a 1968 Buick Wildcat. A 19-foot long convertible with giant I-beams in the trunk to stabilize the body. It was HUGE. It weighed 4,850 lbs. It was beautiful and powerful but needlessly wasteful. Premium leaded gasoline for it also cost me about $1 per gallon.
Some of those SUVs today routinely weigh 5,6,7, even 8,000 lbs or more. I'd say the average family sedan made in the 60's and 70's (the largest cars ever) probably weighed 4,000 lbs.
The problem is that everyone now wants 4-wheel drive - that's where all the weight comes from. I'd be willing to bet that 99.99999% of soccer-moms with a 5,000 lb+ SUV have no intention of ever taking it off-road or otherwise having ANY use for 4WD. Anyone who knows how to drive doesn't even need front-wheel drive, let alone 4WD - even in the snow.
It really doesn't matter to me what reasons people have for needing ridiculously large vehicles, my point is that they should be discouraged. I don't care about kids, safety, or any specific person's issues. The plan is to discourage wasteful vehicles. I see 100 massive SUVs in Chicago everyday and RARELY does one ever have anyone in it besides the driver.
I'm only offering solutions, anyway. I take public transportation everyday. Frankly I hope gasoline goes to $100/gallon to really stick it to SUV owners - particularly the ones who've bought one in the past few years knowing full well that the price of gas is high.
Some of those SUVs today routinely weigh 5,6,7, even 8,000 lbs or more. I'd say the average family sedan made in the 60's and 70's (the largest cars ever) probably weighed 4,000 lbs.
The problem is that everyone now wants 4-wheel drive - that's where all the weight comes from. I'd be willing to bet that 99.99999% of soccer-moms with a 5,000 lb+ SUV have no intention of ever taking it off-road or otherwise having ANY use for 4WD. Anyone who knows how to drive doesn't even need front-wheel drive, let alone 4WD - even in the snow.
It really doesn't matter to me what reasons people have for needing ridiculously large vehicles, my point is that they should be discouraged. I don't care about kids, safety, or any specific person's issues. The plan is to discourage wasteful vehicles. I see 100 massive SUVs in Chicago everyday and RARELY does one ever have anyone in it besides the driver.
I'm only offering solutions, anyway. I take public transportation everyday. Frankly I hope gasoline goes to $100/gallon to really stick it to SUV owners - particularly the ones who've bought one in the past few years knowing full well that the price of gas is high.
- Status
Similar threads
