General Cycling Discussion - Solutions to fuel economy/consumption problems?

I am going to be a hypocrite here and suggest something that is socialist in nature. It does have merit in my opinion however so here we go..... :eek:

If the government were to enact a stystem of fuel rationing to the general public what would it hurt? Or would the benefits be prevalent?

Lets say every houshold in America is rationed an annual fuel consumption allowance which under no circumstances can be exceeded. Fuel cards will be available to every member of the workforce (no slackers) on a month to month basis with 12 equal portions of fuel per year. There would be an allowance for recreational use that can be applied for once per year that is fixed per household not per driver.

Benefits:

Promote the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles instead of Vipers and Excursions.

Promote use of public transportation.

Limit our flow of cash to middle eastern ( terrorist countries).

Promote development/purchase of fuel cell/electric/alternative fuel cars.

Promote responsible use of our rationed fuel.

Promote healthier air due to limited use.

Decrease traffic deaths/injuries with limited driving.

Promotes carpooling where mass transit is less available.

Drawbacks:

Can't drive to the end of the driveway to pick up the mail every day.

Limits the ability to drive to the corner store to get a can of soda and a snickers bar.



OK, lets hear what ya got to say..... I have my flame suit on

;)

You know I am not sure that is really a Socialist kind of thing, but that really isn't the issue. it is however very prudent (sorry all you George Sr fans but I sure do love that word) fiscally,and tax wise think of all those tax dollars we would save from not having to build more roads and what not. Why we may even be able to come up with money to educate all the people so they can be informed voters and tax payers as well as a strong sense of pride why maybe then drug abuse would drop as well as assaults murders etc etc. Our defense would become stronger cause we won't be reliant on foreigners for our power which in my book is a very unwise and bad thing. It means we must kiss these people butts or they get all in an uproar and raise our oil prices, or worse yet cut us off completely. Environmentally it would be most awesome maybe Chris L will finally be able to write a post when something isn't burning on his continent (or ours for that mater). It would drive medical cost down since people may actually start to lose weight and fell good about themselves. And heres a big one maybe it will bring back the neighborhood by actually having to go out and interact with people with out the need of a 5 ton metal box between you and them (I think cars actually take away from that community feeling by isolating everybody from each other). People may finally realize that they don't need to beholden(sp) to large corporations to get through their daily lives( auto manufacturers and George W advisers, oops sorry that slipped out I meant to say large oil companies.) Just think of the money people will save by not having to pay for all that gas why they could put it back into the economy and help us speed our way to full economic recovery and lastly we may be able to actually bankrupt those wimpy a$$ chicken s@@t hypocritical terrorists that are mucking up our lives. Well there I go again drifting off into my pretty little world I have dreamed up. Now I do agree with you and would back any effort to have it done but in reality we would put people out of work and the spoiled brat car drivers out there who seem to think they have this God given right to drive would never stand for it. They would cry, whimper, cheat, and by black market fuel maybe even riot and we would all be in the same mess anyway. Education is the best way out of this mess and even with that it takes generations to change people habits. And on a personal note I would miss my daily drive to pick up the mail, and yes that includes Sunday got get the paper you know! :D You know as an after thought all that I said above sounds sort of like trickle down economics doesn't it?

Fuel ration stickers and the like were done during WWII and was seen as a way to help "our boys". Unfortunatly it won't work today. I can't believe I'm saying this but.... I disagree with the tactic... You'll have people b!tc4ing about their "right" to drive gas hogs when THEY want, to to hell with evreybody else. Oh wait we've got that now... Hmmmm how about making the amount of tax dollars spent subsidizing the oil dealers more obvious to the people by charging the tax at the pump rather than forcing the rest of us who don't drive Escalades and Excursions to pay for their "right" with our tax dollar.

yeah. not that it would ever hapeen with our present administration, but i'm all for taxing the crap out of gasoline, the same way they do with cigarettes now in NYC (8 bucks a pack).
i'm also all for raising bridge and tunnel prices here and making them BOTH ways, and nyc resident parking stickers. but what is happening instead? subway/bus fares going from 1.50 a trip to 2 bucks. dang. glad i finally got a bike.

Originally posted by SamDaBikinMan
If the government were to enact a stystem of fuel rationing to the general public what would it hurt? Or would the benefits be prevalent?

This debate was hashed and rehashed on the rec.bicycles.* newsgroups ad nauseum.

http://smlnk.com/?VPNK6ZMO

The problem is that people don't all live in the same type of environment. Rationing could be made workable but it would be a lot more complicated than what was proposed. Certain things about each person would have to be taken into consideration such as population density of their surrounding area, distance from essential services, occupational roles, etc...

After a lot of thought, one realizes that there really is no compelling reason to ration fuel. The market will ration it's consumption naturally.

Back in the 1970's, the big concern was that we would run out of fossil fuels in 30 years. That didn't happen.

There was concern that oil prices would rise and crush the economy. People would be forced to find alternative energy sources and transportation efficiencies. That didn't happen either. In relative terms, fossil fuel prices in the USA are about as cheap as they have ever been in our history. Automobile purchases are made with little regard to fuel efficiency.

I believe that there is one overlooked factor that will have an impact on fossil fuel prices worldwide and that is simple supply and demand. Developing countries are experiencing exponential growth in the use of automobiles and petrol fuel. This demand will surely cause prices to go up if the growth continues at a rate faster than oil mining and refining.

To the environmentalist, higher fuel prices seem like a welcome tool to stimy fossil fuel use. The sad reality is that higher fuel prices will most likely drive the global economy down. Slow ecomonics lead to desparation and 'pragmatism'. This pragmatism usually means loosening of pollution controls resulting in the opposite effect hoped for by environmentalists.

well, maybe a surprise to some as you as i often support "socialist" ideas... but i judge the idea not just on its political origin...

while in theory it has good intentions... unless there is a critical shortage or crisis like during a war when you need to conserve raw materials, i am generally against rationing.

as some people here have said, it hits people differently and there are all kinds of factors involved.

i don't like the idea of fuel rationing and i think something that uses the market and allows people as much choice as possible is much better. i.e. raising the gas tax with the combination of congestion pricing achieves the same goal but with more freedom. with a much higher gas tax people would be more interested in fuel efficient cars and the auto industry would respond by making more fuel efficient cars.

so my ideal plan would be:
1) raise gas taxes considerably to say $4/gallon - in reality this would be best implemented in say $.25/ year so that people know it is coming and can prepare and make appropriate decisions (i.e. replace the SUV guzzler with a more fuel-efficient alternative when it's time)
2) remove and publicize all currently (mostly hidden) oil, gas and road subsidies so that people realize how much we really spend on auto transportation - including highway patrols, accident infrastructure, military efforts, etc. -- the large group of "anti-taxers" in the US would probably be horrified if they actually knew the extend of the costs
4) raise registration/taxes to be based on amount of pollution - like say the Euro system based on the roughly proportional fuel size -- probably also with some form of tax reductions/credits for extra fuel-efficient or pollution-prevention systems (highly efficient or electric, etc)
5) require auto insurance companies to offer "pay-at-the-pump" insurance so that a) every driver is insured as they have to buy gas to drive and b) drivers save money by driving less
6) implement some program be it subway/rail/bus transit for people who cannot afford to drive under the new system
7) put a larger share of public money into rail than just auto and air infrastructure. actually this would come naturally as rail would become more attractive if driving were more expensive
8) perhaps special allowances and extensions for businesses that depend highly on cheap gas so that they can invest and reposition and successfully transfer to the new system

anyhow, i could go on and list many of the benefits of the above proposal, but i think this post is already long enough

Although a novel idea and MAY be able to work IF much thought is given to it. As already stated, each household would have to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Let me give you an example with myself and a co-worker:

My coworker lives in town, CAN take a bus and CAN ride a bike, but won't do either (lazy). He lives 11km from work.

I live 40km from work, no public transportation and (in my opinion is too far to ride everyday). When I lived in town, down the street from my co-worker, I rode in summer and car-pooled with him in winter.

So I burn more gas than him per year, if I was given the same ration I would burn it up faster.

Now I do have options, ANOTHER co-worker lives in the same area as I and we car share 2 days a week. I tried to convince her to do more but she wouldn't go for it. IF there was a ration then we would have to increase our car sharing and I could ride in one day per week. That way I could possibly stretch out my ration to last the year.

BUT I am willing to do that, most people are not and might not have the health to ride so far 1 day a week.

As well, my wife has a car but she works drastically differant hours per week (expect Fridays where we drive in together) plus she is involved with a group that meets once per week on weekends which, of course , is in town. We bought her the car in February of 2001 and she already has 22,000km on the thing. She refuses to exercise, hates to sweat, and will obsolutly NOT consider alternate forms of transportation. Don't get me wrong she has a heart of gold, but she sure is lazy and loves the ability to get around when she wants. Without a doubt she would have her years ration of gas burnt in less than 6 months, then I would have to cart her around.

It could work on a case by case basis and IF people where really active in persuing alternate forms. I own a light 4 cyl 2wd pickup, a gas guzzler, but to reduce gas consumption I do the follwoing:
- car share one day per week with a co-worker, she drives Mondays I drive Tuesdays.
- bike ride into work one day per week (summer only) Wednesdays
- drive in with my wife on Fridays (leave truck at home)


Sooo, I have reduced my potential 5 days of driving down to 2 days a week in summer and 3 days in winter.

Anyway, I am getting off the subject, but my point is - it is a good idea, and worth considering, but needs much exploration and thought and cooperation of the public for it to work. The case by case basis my work but cooperation???? I have said it in other posts - people are lazy, I doubt you would get it.

Digger

Americans love their cars way too much to ever let anything stand in their way of a good solo commute.

Taxes only hurt the poor. Independent truck drivers would grind to a halt. Air travel, etc. Oil is a huge part of our GDP . Getting goods and services to the consumer (WE ARE CONSUME-RS)

Do we really want black market oil?

How about a moritorium on fixing the roads?

Mike,
putting 'markets' and 'naturally' together tells me you understand neither. Free markets cannot account for the cost of war. They do not make massive infrastructure investments, much less an investment in anticipation of changing energy supply patterns. And they adapt to economic upheaval only after it happens. That, after all, is why the Federal Reserve, to pick just one example, was created. Preventing upheaval is a good idea. In short, using the idea of the marketplace as some sort of magic wand demonstrates that you haven't studied either the history of markets, or what makes them work.

Some of you are getting carried away with the benifits. "Solve the drug problem ..."

Anyway woildn't it be easier to just stop subsidizing and let the price rize to it's more natural level. That way we wouldn't need yet another govermental department to print and distribute the tickets.

On the other hand counterfiting the tickets would be a good way to make money!

Joe
:beer:

Rip,
I would suggest you study the issue. Poor roads
raise the cost of driving,by increasing the wear and tear on a car. While a poor person can buy a small car that gets good mileage, they have no control over how badly the roads will tear it up. Indeed, if we handled this as the Europeans do; we would quickly see cars for sale that exceeded 50mpg. Btw, trains are much more energy
efficient than trucks for long distance freight. They are also MUCH safer. The reason you see all those semis is that the roads get more federal money, making them cheaper. If subsidies were equal, you would see a vast amount of freight going over to rail. This would result in fewer highway deaths, less pollution, less congestion on the roads. Lastly, take a look at the real picture as regards petroleum. Wars, oil price shocks, supply interruptions, and huge price increases are all coming. The world's economy has been dependent on oil; that will slowly shift to other energy sources as the price increases, and problems with supply become commonplace. As is the case with any sensible investment, small amounts invested regularly will return a greater yield...then a huge investment when the **** hits the fan.

originally posted by joeprim
Anyway woildn't it be easier to just stop subsidizing and let the price rize to it's more natural level. That way we wouldn't need yet another govermental department to print and distribute the tickets.

YES!

actually that's almost exactly what i was suggesting - making users pay the actual costs of driving and letting the market decide (with maybe i little extra increase to include indirect costs like military action that are not so visible but still current costs of driving)

originally posted by late
take a look at the real picture as regards petroleum. Wars, oil price shocks, supply interruptions, and huge price increases are all coming. The world's economy has been dependent on oil; that will slowly shift to other energy sources as the price increases, and problems with supply become commonplace. As is the case with any sensible investment, small amounts invested regularly will return a greater yield...then a huge investment when the **** hits the fan.

right on! i just wish more people would see it that way. regardless of whether it last 12 or 25 years, oil is not the energy source of the future world economy... we can start preparing now or the US can experience massive economic crisis in a few years when oil prices soar and we have no alternative energy or transit options and all business and transportation is centered around the gas-powered auto.

i also agree about the freight train/truck subsidies... iam always annoyed at the terminology: in the US it's an "investment" in road infrastructure and a "subsidy" in the train infrastructre...

Hi Nathan,
I just noticed an earlier post you made. It occurred to me that it would make an easy way to discuss sensible policy.
1)Gas tax increases- a modest increas of 2 or 3 cents a year will take longer to work. But it will
make the transistion a lot less painful. And it will actually do a better job in the long run. While it will take decades to even catch up with
the other developed countries, it create market incentives for effciency and the development of alternative energy sourcres that Europe lacks.
2)Removal of subsidies- this is not really practical. A look at the history of transportation policy would tell you why. American and England have both tried reducing the subsidy for rail; and the result has not been pretty. There is good reason to suspect a termination of government involvement would have a highly negative impact on the economy.
4)yes, a differential tax would work. The politics of it are sticky, Americans whine too much. If a few grand of the cost of their Monstro SUV went to lower the cost of a 50mpg Rabbit; you would hear plenty of whining.
5) Not familiar with pump insurance. Any idea where I could learn more about it?
--I like many of the ideas, getting them turned into law isn't going to be easy.

late had posted a question about what i meant about actual costs, but it looks like he changed his post, but here is amy clarification anyhow

actually, i mean an approximation of the actual cost, so yes, i mean paying for roads, free parking, military action, highway patrol, traffic control, emergency road-side assistance, etc.

since this is difficult to determine exactly as many are indirect costs, i think users should pay something above just the direct costs of driving. currently users pay way LESS than just the direct costs of driving (roads, parking, etc)

originally posted by Late
2)Removal of subsidies- this is not really practical. A look at the history of transportation policy would tell you why. American and England have both tried reducing the subsidy for rail; and the result has not been pretty. There is good reason to suspect a termination of government involvement would have a highly negative impact on the economy

this is a good point and you're right to a large degree. if i remember right i said "removal and awareness" or something to that extent with the "awareness" being the most important part. Americans just do not realize how much it really costs to drive. they think it costs what you pay at the pump - or maybe a little more when you factor in insurance -- but the government costs are MUCH larger. just the awareness would help public opinion sway public policy.

originally posted by late
5) Not familiar with pump insurance. Any idea where I could learn more about it?

well, i'm not sure where the original idea came from but i heard a reference to something like it somewhere a few years ago and came up with my own plan... no idea who else has simliar plans, but mine is something like:

instead or in addition to the current type of basically flat-rate insuarance where you pay x/month to insure yourself and your vehicle regardless of how much you drive (with maybe discounts if you live close to work or whatever) where a driver who drives 2,000 miles a year has to pay the same as one who drives 45,000/year, insurance comanies offer pay-at-the-pump insurance.

basically it would work like so:
1) in order to get gas a driver needs a card issued by an insurance agency
2) in the event that a driver does not have an account or his account has expired, he can purchase insurance on the spot (for a higher rate of course) --- this would be either run by the government or more likely a private insurer with a guarantee of coverage (almost all states already have such legislation for "expensive" driver)
3) in order to get discounts, most customers sign up with an insurance provider and probably pay a basic monthly fee for the account. whatever the market comes up with - like the cell phone market with plans and what not
4) the customer then receives an account number and card which he uses at the pump to fill up.
5) when filling up, the insurance fee is calculated as a percentage of the amount of gas purchased

the strengths of the insurance-at-the-pump plan are:
1) all drivers insured - that all drivers are at all times insured which is a goal that states currently find VERY difficult to implement and there are thousands if not millions of uninsured drivers on the road
2) encourage less driving - i.e. excessive, unecessary driving drivers would save money by driving less by also saving on their insurance bills -- thus, an individual, personal incentive to drive less
3) more "fair" insurance risks ARE obviously proportional to miles driven, so makes more sense for both the customer and the insurer. sure, some drivers have fewer claims driving 40000 miles than others driving 2000 miles, but the same driver driver 20 times as much will statistically have 20 times the claims/costs.

as an analogy: it's basically as if there were only 1 option for cell phones - flat fee or no phone - and in that were the case, many people who currently have cell phones would a) not b/c they only use them for emergencies and wouldn't want to pay a full flat-fee and b) talk more as anyone knows that when you've already paid, why not do a little more?

This thread is very encouraging! I'm so glad to see other people who think like I do!

The idea that motorists should pay the true cost of driving should be extended to include the environmental costs of driving as well. While these cannot be quantified as precisely as other costs, they can be estimated. These costs include the environmental impacts of oil extraction, air pollution, and sprawl (enabled by the cheap transportation). So, I'm all for an increase in gas taxes.

I really like the idea of rations though. People have brought up the fact that different people have different needs. Those of us who live within easy biking distance to work could sell our rations to those who live too far or are willing to pay for them for whatever reason. This would "even out" the discrepencies some, and create an incentive for some people to reduce their consumption even more.

Originally posted by Raiyn
Fuel ration stickers and the like were done during WWII and was seen as a way to help "our boys". Unfortunatly it won't work today. I can't believe I'm saying this but.... I disagree with the tactic... You'll have people b!tc4ing about their "right" to drive gas hogs when THEY want, to to hell with evreybody else. Oh wait we've got that now... Hmmmm how about making the amount of tax dollars spent subsidizing the oil dealers more obvious to the people by charging the tax at the pump rather than forcing the rest of us who don't drive Escalades and Excursions to pay for their "right" with our tax dollar.

The fact is that driving is a licensed priviledge not a "Right" to all americans. No insult intended to the post . The tax idea has merit but then the rich would just keep on trucking.

HMMMM.... This is a tough issue to decide.

Lets throw this modification in....

Rations are issued as I described in an earlier post however additional rations can be purchsed directly for exhorbitant cost.

This way even the poorer folks can get a fair amount of fuel and the rich can do what they will BUT have to pay dearly for it. If you can afford a 80K mercedes then 8 dollars per gallon for additional gas should be nothing...

Originally posted by nathank


well, i'm not sure where the original idea came from but i heard a reference to something like it somewhere a few years ago and came up with my own plan... no idea who else has simliar plans, but mine is something like:

instead or in addition to the current type of basically flat-rate insuarance where you pay x/month to insure yourself and your vehicle regardless of how much you drive (with maybe discounts if you live close to work or whatever) where a driver who drives 2,000 miles a year has to pay the same as one who drives 45,000/year, insurance comanies offer pay-at-the-pump insurance.

basically it would work like so:
1) in order to get gas a driver needs a card issued by an insurance agency
2) in the event that a driver does not have an account or his account has expired, he can purchase insurance on the spot (for a higher rate of course) --- this would be either run by the government or more likely a private insurer with a guarantee of coverage (almost all states already have such legislation for "expensive" driver)
3) in order to get discounts, most customers sign up with an insurance provider and probably pay a basic monthly fee for the account. whatever the market comes up with - like the cell phone market with plans and what not
4) the customer then receives an account number and card which he uses at the pump to fill up.
5) when filling up, the insurance fee is calculated as a percentage of the amount of gas purchased

the strengths of the insurance-at-the-pump plan are:
1) all drivers insured - that all drivers are at all times insured which is a goal that states currently find VERY difficult to implement and there are thousands if not millions of uninsured drivers on the road
2) encourage less driving - i.e. excessive, unecessary driving drivers would save money by driving less by also saving on their insurance bills -- thus, an individual, personal incentive to drive less
3) more "fair" insurance risks ARE obviously proportional to miles driven, so makes more sense for both the customer and the insurer. sure, some drivers have fewer claims driving 40000 miles than others driving 2000 miles, but the same driver driver 20 times as much will statistically have 20 times the claims/costs.

as an analogy: it's basically as if there were only 1 option for cell phones - flat fee or no phone - and in that were the case, many people who currently have cell phones would a) not b/c they only use them for emergencies and wouldn't want to pay a full flat-fee and b) talk more as anyone knows that when you've already paid, why not do a little more?


I like the sound of this approach. It will take care of many problems in one fell swoop.

Rations are issued as I described in an earlier post however additional rations can be purchsed directly for exhorbitant cost.

This way even the poorer folks can get a fair amount of fuel and the rich can do what they will BUT have to pay dearly for it. If you can afford a 80K mercedes then 8 dollars per gallon for additional gas should be nothing...

well, i fell kind of like Raiyn... as much as i would like the results that would come from such a program, i don't know if i wuld even support such a drastic program (and i am VERY much in favor of reducing auto usage and improving efficiency). and there is no way in H@ll that Americans would support it.

as to the pay-at-the-pump insurance... it seems to me that no one would really loose as high-volume drivers could just buy a flat-rate plan like what they currently have, insurance companies would have more brackets and numbers to so their acturarial estimates so could (presumably) better guage their risks and earn more, and states could lower their costs of insurance enforcement as well as ensure insurance coverage... don't know how to get some such program started - i would assume it would have to begin state-wide like in say California, Vermont, Oregon, New York or Massachusetts...

I like a lot of what I'm reading here. But, I'm convinced the only workable scheme is a relatively straightforward approach of significant increases in a NATIONAL (US) gas tax. My reasons are as follows:

1) Its the only solution that I can conceive of that is simple enough to be implemented AND be fair. Using complicated calculations of several "factors" to produce a "fair" rationing system would most likely end up like our tax code.

2) Rationing would have to take into account regional differences as well as occupational differences--folks living in urban/suburb environments vs. rural; and office/plant workers vs. farmers/truckers and other heavy fuel users.

3) People would still have the freedom to choose big SUV-type gas guzzlers if they are willing to pay the fuel costs. They would also still be free to choice to live 40 miles from their job.

4) Poor people would not be penalized--they would of course be highly motivated to purchase fuel efficient vehicles (which are often also the least expensive).

5) A national tax would be required (vs. states) so that it would be applied uniformly. We don't want folks driving 50 miles to the state line to buy gas that 50 cents/gal cheaper.

My two cents,
Dave

To all you good people in the U.S of A.

High FUEL taxes do not curb the use of motor vehicles.
Here in the U.K. we have about the highest taxation on Fuel of any other country in the World (about 70%).
This has no determental affect what so ever on the amount of car use.
Car culture victims will have their fix regardless of whatever they pay at the pumps.
The Brits were also regarded as favourable towards lower powered and mini sized cars, even this trend despite increasing fuel costs has been turned on its head in recent years with the massive increase, as in the U.S. of the SUV type vehicles.

Hi,
The Wall Street Journal tells me the diesel rabbit (about 50mpg) is the hottest selling car on the Continent, thanks to
the Governments tipping in a few extra quid.

Originally posted by willic
To all you good people in the U.S of A.

High FUEL taxes do not curb the use of motor vehicles.
Here in the U.K. we have about the highest taxation on Fuel of any other country in the World (about 70%).
This has no determental affect what so ever on the amount of car use.
Car culture victims will have their fix regardless of whatever they pay at the pumps.
The Brits were also regarded as favourable towards lower powered and mini sized cars, even this trend despite increasing fuel costs has been turned on its head in recent years with the massive increase, as in the U.S. of the SUV type vehicles.

The UK is nowhere and I mean nowhere near as bad as the USA. What passes as a SUV here (Landrover, Shogun etc) is tiny compared to some of the beasts being driven in the USA.

I agree that the increases in Petrol tax may not have significantly decreased our mileage but our fuel efficiency has improved markedly

In the UK cars are getting more and more efficient ( a lot adverts use this as a selling point), diesel car sales are rising (Most Americans don't even know what a diesel car is), the company car tax rules have been changed to penalise the gas guzzlers not the low mileage user, lower taxes for smaller engined cars, this is the way to go.

Originally posted by Raiyn
You'll have people b!tc4ing about their "right" to drive gas hogs when THEY want, to to hell with evreybody else.

:rolleyes:

Must I have to keep teaching you people? I wouldn't have put it quite so harshly, but nobody has a right to drive anything they want, still I do have the privilege to drive whatever I want as long as it is legal. It hurts nobody else, and in America it is nobody else's business what I drive. Maybe I can put this in my sig so I can stop having to re-type it. This is America. The republican's are in power now, get over it. If some of you want to tax something, please take a class in basic economics first. I work hard for my money and I can decide myself how to best spend it.

I drive a big, ugly 4X4 pickup and I like it. And I move WAY out of the lane when I meet fellow bikers, especially since I am one myself. My friends like my truck too, especially when I get a big truckload of scuzzy mooching mtn bikers who never chip in for gas :)

Originally posted by MikeOK
... still I do have the privilege to drive whatever I want as long as it is legal. It hurts nobody else, and in America it is nobody else's business what I drive. ... This is America. The republican's are in power now, get over it. If some of you want to tax something, please take a class in basic economics first. I work hard for my money and I can decide myself how to best spend it.

OK, MikeOK, but let's stop subsidizing roads and highway infrastructure out of the general (income, property, business, etc.) tax fund, and raise the tax on gasoline to make up the difference. I also favor pay-at-the-pump for everyone's legally mandated basic liability insurance (an archaically low $35K in California; it should be at least $250K in today's dollars); motorists with bad records would pay significantly more, and anyone could buy additional insurance as desired, in today's semi-open market.

I am all for letting the economic marketplace send behavioural cues, but let's make sure the price of any given commodity, such as gasoline, truly reflects its societal costs. Private motor vehicle travel in the U.S. is probably the most heavily subsidized form of transportation in the history of the world.

Hi,
John,
the most subsidised form (tongue in cheek mode)
was a steam powered vehicle that was produced in....Alexandria.We're talking BC, guys. Took the priests all year to get it ready to go 100 yards.
Mike,
you be as harsh as you want, you're not really replying to anyone's substantive arguments. And your "big" points address irrelevancies. Oh, and please DO teach me something about economics, anything at all, go on, I insist.

Originally posted by MikeOK


The republican's are in power now, get over it. Yes but not for long, not after Lott's little speech (saying I'm sorry on BET doesn't cut it) and after baby boy Bush gets us into a quagmire in Iraq the GOP wil be out on their keisters faster than you can say Operation Desert Dork

Originally posted by late

MikeOK,
you be as harsh as you want, you're not really replying to anyone's substantive arguments. And your "big" points address irrelevancies. Oh, and please DO teach me something about economics, anything at all, go on, I insist.

Hey, Late, unless your real name is Dr. Alan Greenspan, your opinions aren't any more powerful than MikeOk's or anybody else's on the forum.

Turn your tune around, Mr. Late.

I agree Lott's comment was idiotic, but is nothing compared to what Democrats have said/done and gotten away with in the past. Even if Lott is excommunicated it's not the end of the party. A substitue majority party leader will replace Lott. And as far as the war goes, time will tell. But, I think many American's will/do support Bush and the war effort. If this thing does boil over and we unleash the beast. I think Bush and the Republicans will receive Kudos not criticism (not true, there is always criticism).

It is my strong belief and hope that the Republican party can stay motivated and minimize the stupidity that is inherant in all political parties.

Back to the issue:

I've read all the thoughts/theories/dreams about this the Utopian Society, and a lot of them sound pretty good --- in theory. So did the welfare program and in actuallity it is probably the most abused government program.

I can agree that those that use it should pay for it. I can and do. And will work my butt off to continue to make more money to be able to. Ahh, nothing like motivation to strengthen a society. What will happen, is all you "feel gooders" will claim that the poor are being penalized and should get "special" rights, not "equal" right and the "good" program will become more and more "socialists", and THAT'S what I have a problem with!

We can agree both sides of the coin untill we're blue in the face. Let's agree to disagree and get together for a BIKE ride!

L8R

Hi A2,
as I mentioned in an earlier post, my source for analysis on
energy issues is the Economist. This is a conservative Brit weekly,
it is the world's best weekly, and does an excellent annual energy analysis. I like them for several reasons. One of those reasons is that they have no involvement in American politics.I could simply tell you what they
think is a sensible policy; but you really need to know how they came to that conclusion.

I agree with you on the point of conservation. I think it's a good idea. In fact, I commute to work a couple times a week, and the benefit in the pocketbook is very welcome. However, my passion is mtn biking, and the closest trail is 1.5 hours away. The ONLY (reasonable) way to get there is to drive.

I would be very upset if someone told me, "I'm sorry, you've used up all your gas credits. You can't go!"

My wife, child and I love to travel and tour the USA. We drive because we camp and take the bikes. We load up our SUV (Chevy Tahoe) and usually pack it full. I can afford this vehicle, but I can't afford this vehicle to sit in my garage and use it just for vacations. It's my wife's "everyday" car. Is it overkill for her to drive to the grocery store with it? Probably, but that's the compromise we "decide" to make. It costs us more to operate it on a regular basis, even though see doesn't drive "everyday".

I would feel it was an infrigement on my freedom of choice if someone (the govt.) said, "You can't drive that car, it's too big".

I feel it's the govt. job to keep us safe from foreign invasion (Military), ourselves (Police), protect us (Fire Dept.) and keep us organized otherwise. I don't think it's the governments responsibility to feed the poor and provide public art. I know there are plenty shades of gray, and the environment being a big issue. I think Local, State and Nat'l parks should be better funded and more land purchases made. At what expense? That's a shade of gray! And another discussion altogether.

I don't have all the answers. (A lot yes, but all, no) But I think our goverment has morphed into a big glob of doing too much that is beyond it's role. We are giving up freedoms every day, and that scares the heck out of me. I see us becoming more Socialist and less the Republic that we once were.

I don't smoke, I hate the smell of smoke. But, I don't think the govt. should be able to tell a private party that there can be "No Smoking" in their place of business, and then tax the Cig companies to death and use that $$$$ for their benefit. I think eventually the Cig companies will go out of business and then what? Alcohol? $32 for a 6-pack? All in the name of "the betterment of society". What about fast-food? Will that be taxed next because it's unhealthy? See where this is heading? I don't think it's the governements responsibility to tell me what I can or cannot drive/do/drink/smoke/etc. I feel it's their responsibility to provide me with the infrastructure to allow me to drive in a safe and controlled (Highway Patrol) manner. Protect me and my family. Protect American companies so they can make money and thrive in the world ecomony!

I also don't believe in socialized medicine. I think Health care is a big problem right now. It's not the Dr.'s wanting to get rich that's the problem. It's the attorney's that are generating frivalous lawsuits that cause Insurance Agencies to increase rates, and Drug Companies to carry huge policies for protection that are driving costs higher. I think the govt. needs to step in a limit lawsuits, protect Dr.'s and drug companies and allow them to do their job's w/o fear of being sued.

There are so many more topics to discuss, let's go for a ride, sit around the campfire and have a beer and discuss these!

L8R

Hi,
one disaster at a time. Rationing doesn't work very well. It's strictly a response to emergencies. For starters, a nice conservatice approach to this would be to add 2 or 3 cents to the gas tax, every year. It would take a while, but it would get us
where we need to be. The Economist favors the Carbon Tax, but Congress has a lot of problems with sophisticated solutions. They screw them up.

Originally posted by a2psyklnut
I would feel it was an infrigement on my freedom of choice if someone (the govt.) said, "You can't drive that car, it's too big".


Off topic slightly but... I feel it an infringment on MY freedom that the governments of North America DO SAY, "You can't drive that car, it's too small!"

Damn it, I want a Lotus Elise but big brother says it is not safe and I might get hurt! :mad:

If gov't can protect me from myself (killing myself in my tiny little sports car) why can't they protect me from you (killing me in your giant SUV)???

Let people drive whatever they damn well want... tax the guzzlers at the pumps!

For starters, a nice conservatice approach to this would be to add 2 or 3 cents to the gas tax, every year. It would take a while, but it would get us

Late: Agreed!


Let people drive whatever they damn well want...

KrisA: Agreed!

If they allow motocyclists to drive w/o a helmet (here in FL anyways), why shouldn't they allow you to drive your Lotus????

Tangent: Talk about hypocracy or irony or whatever: In FL, as an adult, you can drive a motorcycle w/o a helmet. But if you're under 16 you MUST have a helmet on while riding a bike!

What if you're under 16 and a passanger on a motorcycle? Do you need a helmet or can you choose not to have one?

L8R

Well there are a number of issues on this thread, so to cover just a few that caught my eye

http://www.smartstore.uk.com/smartinfo.html
This is the Smart car - it dose about 70mpg and can do over 80 mph.

The only problem is that whilst these are common all over Europe, I can't imagine you would be allowed to import them into the USA as they are too small !! Even a medium sized American car would be wider than this car is long.

So I think one of the cornerstones of any proposed changes would be to penalise large cars, so not only would they pay extra for the fuel, but also for the volume of the car, so in the longterm to encourage micro cars.

In reply to an earlier thread about the European version's of SUV's (they don't really exist here, but there are some things that are close) I drive a Land Rover Defender, which no way could you call it a 'Sports' but is definatly a 'UV' for those that don't know they look like this

http://www.landroverenthusiast.com/enthusiastgallery/October2002/p1000424.jpg

At 18 feet long they are one of the largest vehicles on our roads, but it a diesel engine, and will do about 36 mpg (and 90 mph) so the running costs per mile are less than any large American car (if fuel cost the same)

However these are alternatives in terms of fuel for diesel engines
http://www.veggievan.org/
Most diesels will run perfectly happily on a mixture of veggie oil and diesel without any conversion

My final thoughts on this tread is to say that all the additional revenue raised should be plowed back into transportation, so that things like rail services can be developed and made faster and cheaper then the car.

Regarding the Smartcar.

There is a motorcycle shop on the outside edge of my neighborhood that rents/sells those. They currently have two in their rental fleet and I've seen 2 others around town. So, they are legal in the US!

L8R

Originally posted by KrisA
Damn it, I want a Lotus Elise but big brother says it is not safe and I might get hurt! :mad:

I have heard rumours that the Elise will be made available in the US. Now let's see what they can do about that Caterham R500... |8^)



Originally posted by KrisA
If gov't can protect me from myself (killing myself in my tiny little sports car) why can't they protect me from you (killing me in your giant SUV)???

They try on both accounts and sometimes fail on both accounts. It's called driver training. It doesn't matter what the vehicle... if driven impoperly and without adequate training, someone will end up hurt. A sportscar or SUV can kill you just as dead if you're hit by one while on your bike.

And yes, the gov't disallows the sale of certain SUVs too because they don't meet federal safety standards. Case in point: Land Rover Defender 90 and 110 models were withdrawn from US markets after 1997. Let's also remember that it's not necessarily the gov't descriminating against certain make/model vehicles... they simply set the regulations... it's up to the manufacturers to satisfy them.

I'm afraid I can't see the US Government ever allowing in the Caterham, but I believe they are available as a kit car, so you could import the parts and pay a mechanic to build one for you - and you will therefore have an 'American' Caterham

As for driver training - One should compare the childishly simple American 'test' which any able bodied person could pass, with say the German one, where you only get to take the driving section of the test after the three hour written paper. You have to know how to do things like basic first aid and how to change a wheel as well as how to drive.

As for the Landrovers being withdrawn from the US market - there were a number of issues, the Landrover is after all a 50 year old design (the original 1940's Landrovers were based on Wyllis Jeep chassis) . However one of the reasons was the American Government did not want the American Military to be seen using a using a 'foreign' vehicle within the USA, they wanted them to use the HumVee. Needless to say, in the last Gulf war and in Yougslavia the American forces had to ditch thier HumVee's and swap them for Landrovers, but went to great lengths to ensure that American ground troops were always photographed in HumVees which they used for general transportation behind our lines in Kuwait, The deep penitration units behind their lines in Iraq all used Landrovers, one of the main reasons being that a Chinnok helicopter can carry two landrovers for every one HumVee. In Yugoslavia there was a much simpler reason, the HumVee does not fit on the narrow mountain roads.

Originally posted by khuon


I have heard rumours that the Elise will be made available in the US. Now let's see what they can do about that Caterham R500... |8^)

Supposedly the US spec Elise will have to be based on the next gen car as the current gen's nose has 0 chance of passing any bumper tests. Also I'm predicting that weight will rise to 2000 lbs due to added saftey equipment, yuk. At that weight one may as well just buy a Miata.

Sports cars and bikes... is there any better combination!?! :beer:

Signed, KrisA
sports car owner, mtb owner and commuter, lover of both.

Look at how the govt is helpin fuel economy

ny times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/20/business/20AUTO.html)

Originally posted by RiPHRaPH
Taxes only hurt the poor.

lets expose another myth. The tax burden in this country is carried on the shoulders of the middle class mainly the mid to lower end of of that demographic. The rich have many many loopholes (as well as a bunch of friends in high places back in DC who keep making more) and though when you look at the percentage bracket they fall in (33% I believe) they do not pay nearly that because of all the benefits that are bestowed on them. And the poor (by far the biggest user, next to corporate america, when it comes to tax dollars) do not make enough to pay that much in taxes and they also have many deductions they can use. Now don't get me wrong here I am a champion of the poor. I grew up poor, and I believe that social and health programs (though I wish the social programs were more of an educational thing than a hand out) for them are a must. I also believe that anyone who is working should be able to find some kind of affordable housing. And I will even subsidize there bus pass. But that is where I draw the line, I do not see why we have to keep the poor in mind when we are talking about how to pay for road construction etc etc. You see since driving and owning a car is not a need and you do not NEED to drive than the cost of fuel, insurance, tolls, and other stuff should not be controlled just so the poor can drive. Thats just this left of center guys $0.02 worth And by the way why don't we have a flat tax system in this country yet(with a tax credit built in for the poor) it seems like it would be the only fair way?

Originally posted by Brains
I'm afraid I can't see the US Government ever allowing in the Caterham, but I believe they are available as a kit car, so you could import the parts and pay a mechanic to build one for you - and you will therefore have an 'American' Caterham

... and that almost defeats the purpose of Caterhams. |8^( To me, the appeal of the Caterhams is that they can go toe-to-toe with some of the fastest and nimblest sportscars in the world and still only cost a fraction of the other's price. The R500 with its HP/weight ratio and extremely rigid chassis is the ultimate track car.



Originally posted by Brains
As for driver training - One should compare the childishly simple American 'test' which any able bodied person could pass, with say the German one, where you only get to take the driving section of the test after the three hour written paper. You have to know how to do things like basic first aid and how to change a wheel as well as how to drive.

I believe in constant rigourous training. I'm also a pilot and my training was done as part 141 which included 3 phase checks for primary flight training. Each phase check included not only the written test but also an oral exam and a flight practical. To quote a popular saying, "a good pilot is always training." This is something us cyclists have already embraced. If only this same philosophy could be adopted by drivers. Drivers in the US feel that once they've gotten their license, the learning is over and they know all there is to know. Most drivers do little to even combat the eventual atrophy of just the minimal training they've received.



Originally posted by Brains
As for the Landrovers being withdrawn from the US market - there were a number of issues, the Landrover is after all a 50 year old design (the original 1940's Landrovers were based on Wyllis Jeep chassis) .

Well, I was speaking more about the consumer market and the fact that SUVs also get impacted by federal standards.



Originally posted by Brains
However one of the reasons was the American Government did not want the American Military to be seen using a using a 'foreign' vehicle within the USA, they wanted them to use the HumVee. Needless to say, in the last Gulf war and in Yougslavia the American forces had to ditch thier HumVee's and swap them for Landrovers, but went to great lengths to ensure that American ground troops were always photographed in HumVees which they used for general transportation behind our lines in Kuwait, The deep penitration units behind their lines in Iraq all used Landrovers, one of the main reasons being that a Chinnok helicopter can carry two landrovers for every one HumVee. In Yugoslavia there was a much simpler reason, the HumVee does not fit on the narrow mountain roads.

Yep, it's probably not widely known but it's certainly no secret that SOCOM forces in the US military have preferred the Defender 110 (aka RSOV - Ranger Special Operations Vehicle) to the HMMWVs. However, they were originally chosen to replace the M151 jeeps. The M151 were originally retained in favour of the HMMWV because of the reasons mentioned above in addition to other advantages. When the Army went shopping for a replacement for the 151, they settled upon the D110.

The HMMWV is a capable vehicle but it is quite large. I often am able to squeeze through narrow trails in my Jeep ZJ that would be impassable by a Hummer/Humvee.

Originally posted by KrisA
Supposedly the US spec Elise will have to be based on the next gen car as the current gen's nose has 0 chance of passing any bumper tests. Also I'm predicting that weight will rise to 2000 lbs due to added saftey equipment, yuk. At that weight one may as well just buy a Miata.

I had hopes that the M250 (which would have been US legal and marketted) project would have gone forward but that also was scrapped. Such a shame... :(

I am from the country, which had its fair share not only of a "socialism", but the "communism" too.

I can tell you one thing. The "socialism" does not work.

I can predict with 100% accuracy that as soon as you introduce those "ration cards", the apparatchiks who distribute them will start to sell them to those who are ready to pay.

You will see those EXPLORERS again very soon in scores.

The solution of the excessive driving problem is to stop the existing socialism.

It is to stop subsidies from tax money to road, car, and oil industries. The market will sort the things out by itself.

The gas would cost about $10 per gallon without subsidies. Maybe more.

You will not need to spend money and paper on those ration cards, because no one will drive excessively, when the gas costs its real market value.

I know that socialism is dear to many people, as they see it as the opposition to those bad dishonest greedy immoral ones, which surround them. But the similar wicked individuals are present in socialistic societies too.

Originally posted by SallieW
This thread is very encouraging! I'm so glad to see other people who think like I do!

The idea that motorists should pay the true cost of driving should be extended to include the environmental costs of driving as well. While these cannot be quantified as precisely as other costs, they can be estimated. These costs include the environmental impacts of oil extraction, air pollution, and sprawl (enabled by the cheap transportation). So, I'm all for an increase in gas taxes.
...

I would also suggest that motorists pay the tax to support the hospitals and hospices.

It is the proven fact that concentration of some toxic agents along the motorways is many times more than in the normal environment.

If a person gets sick because of it, it would be only fair if he/she gets a decent place to heal or to die.

It is becoming more and more significant as some illnesses pertaining directly to the environment decline are on the constant and frightening rise.

Some of these conditions are incurable. In this situation a sick person is incapable to provide a decent medical care for him/herself, as these illnesses are getting "younger" and come unexpectedly.

A person, who is accustomed to a relative comfort, may find him/herself in a hospital or hospice, where there is no TV or Internet in the room, or no decent hot shower.

I think it would be fair that the drivers of excessively large cars pay the tax to build and equip the hospitals and hospices, which deal with the diseases related to the environmental decline.

This is the least what they can do for people who got sick due to pollution generated by the excessively heavy cars.

I do not expect a government to do much in this direction. What could be expected from, say, British PM, if his spouse, Cherie, used to employ services of a convicted con man to buy property for the family?

This con man sold the patently faked pills on the industrial scale.

Am I so gullible as to believe for a second that these people will care about my well being? This is not the worst government, by the way. I can only imagine what the worst ones do.