Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
If you want to drive an off-road behemoth, you might start by getting off the city's streets, a state lawmaker says.
A Queens assemblyman wants to ban monster sport-utility vehicles from New York City's streets and parkways.
Hulking SUVs like the Hummer, the Chevrolet Suburban and the Ford Excursion would be relegated to truck lanes - and booted off streets restricted to passenger cars
You're allowed to drive what you want, just not in congested, narrow city streets. They already ban trucks from certain areas; all they're saying is that SUVs are getting so big that they should be classified as trucks. Get off your high horse; you're acting as though your fundamental rights are being taken away.theski wrote:Goddam just let me drive what I want......
As I recall most are already classified as trucks for emissions and safety standards. If the result of that hurts the morons who bought them to drive around a busy city, then tough shit.Darth Wong wrote: You're allowed to drive what you want, just not in congested, narrow city streets. They already ban trucks from certain areas; all they're saying is that SUVs are getting so big that they should be classified as trucks.
Without fuel prices as a limiting factor in the US, do you have emission tax on the car's engine? Unless it was a damn efficient SUV, it wouldn't rate too well on this and thus cost more per annum.Sea Skimmer wrote:As I recall most are already classified as trucks for emissions and safety standards. If the result of that hurts the morons who bought them to drive around a busy city, then tough shit.Darth Wong wrote: You're allowed to drive what you want, just not in congested, narrow city streets. They already ban trucks from certain areas; all they're saying is that SUVs are getting so big that they should be classified as trucks.
No emissions tax, but being classed as a truck means the SUV does not have to meet the same tailpipe emissions and pollution standards that a car does. Thus an SUV can spew many times more pollutants into the air than a car.Admiral Valdemar wrote:Without fuel prices as a limiting factor in the US, do you have emission tax on the car's engine? Unless it was a damn efficient SUV, it wouldn't rate too well on this and thus cost more per annum.
Hooray for conservation.aerius wrote:No emissions tax, but being classed as a truck means the SUV does not have to meet the same tailpipe emissions and pollution standards that a car does. Thus an SUV can spew many times more pollutants into the air than a car.Admiral Valdemar wrote:Without fuel prices as a limiting factor in the US, do you have emission tax on the car's engine? Unless it was a damn efficient SUV, it wouldn't rate too well on this and thus cost more per annum.
The last thing we need is one more restrictive tax--especially one intended for a cause which is completely unnecessary in the USA. Western countries are already highly efficient in their conservationism and most of the pollution in the world these days comes from developing nations.Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Hooray for conservation.
Obviously you've never been to a city like London, Kuala Lumpur or LA where smog and other noxious effects from increased traffic make living quite unpleasant regardless of global conservation. I promote such taxes because it'll get people to give up those damn 4x4s and get a decent and fuel economical car, plus it'll clean the air somewhat.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The last thing we need is one more restrictive tax--especially one intended for a cause which is completely unnecessary in the USA. Western countries are already highly efficient in their conservationism and most of the pollution in the world these days comes from developing nations.Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Hooray for conservation.
Air pollution is not the only added cost of driving a SUV.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:The last thing we need is one more restrictive tax--especially one intended for a cause which is completely unnecessary in the USA. Western countries are already highly efficient in their conservationism and most of the pollution in the world these days comes from developing nations.Admiral Valdemar wrote:
Hooray for conservation.
Yes, well, if they removed the ridiculous standards for cars so that people could drive the large cars they wanted again without such vehicles being placed in the "luxury" category, then virtually nobody would drive rollover-prone SUVs and the dangers would be eliminated. The SUV is a stereotypical example of how the market gets around government regulation--Carter regulated the car market and eliminated the desired size of safe family car, and so the American consumer has turned to the SUV for safety and carrying capacity, which is safer (except for the very case-specific rollover danger) and certainly has more carrying capacity than the government mandated "economy cars" which are just deathtraps.Colonel Olrik wrote: Air pollution is not the only added cost of driving a SUV.
Deathtraps because people with needlessly massive vehicles will crush them in a collision.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Yes, well, if they removed the ridiculous standards for cars so that people could drive the large cars they wanted again without such vehicles being placed in the "luxury" category, then virtually nobody would drive rollover-prone SUVs and the dangers would be eliminated. The SUV is a stereotypical example of how the market gets around government regulation--Carter regulated the car market and eliminated the desired size of safe family car, and so the American consumer has turned to the SUV for safety and carrying capacity, which is safer (except for the very case-specific rollover danger) and certainly has more carrying capacity than the government mandated "economy cars" which are just deathtraps.Colonel Olrik wrote: Air pollution is not the only added cost of driving a SUV.
For 50.000 € you can buy an excellent car, and yet most SUVs are about that price or higher (here). Many people want SUVs for reasons related to size compensation, others because they want to feel safe, others because the neighbour has one (penis envy). Even you put luxury cars more affordable (and I'll bet with you they're far more expensive here than in the US, so I completely agree with the idea), those factors won't just disappear.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Yes, well, if they removed the ridiculous standards for cars so that people could drive the large cars they wanted again without such vehicles being placed in the "luxury" category, then virtually nobody would drive rollover-prone SUVs and the dangers would be eliminated.
Marina, quit spouting bullshit.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:government mandated "economy cars" which are just deathtraps.
That's a tremendous rebuttal.Howedar wrote:Marina, quit spouting bullshit.
No, apologies if I was unclear--luxury cars are not more affordable than SUVs in the USA. Most USAs are very much in the price-range which is affordable for the average consumer here.Colonel Olrik wrote: Even you put luxury cars more affordable (and I'll bet with you they're far more expensive here than in the US, so I completely agree with the idea), those factors won't just disappear.
Marina, with all due respect, that's bullshit. You may figure you can get away with bullshitting a European, but I get the same magazines you do, I see the same advertisements that you do, and I know what American cars and trucks cost to buy and operate. SUVs are not more economical than luxury cars (certainly not the large ones which were specifically singled out in the aforementioned article and which raise everyone's ire; I know there are some wheezy "mini-SUVs" out there, but they don't count).The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No, apologies if I was unclear--luxury cars are not more affordable than SUVs in the USA. Most USAs are very much in the price-range which is affordable for the average consumer here.Colonel Olrik wrote:Even you put luxury cars more affordable (and I'll bet with you they're far more expensive here than in the US, so I completely agree with the idea), those factors won't just disappear.
Well, the luxury car rating takes in a lot of cars which might not be purchased specifically for their size safety. What models are you specifically thinking of comparing?Darth Wong wrote: Marina, with all due respect, that's bullshit. You may figure you can get away with bullshitting a European, but I get the same magazines you do, I see the same advertisements that you do, and I know what American cars and trucks cost to buy and operate. SUVs are not more economical than luxury cars (certainly not the large ones which were specifically singled out in the aforementioned article and which raise everyone's ire; I know there are some wheezy "mini-SUVs" out there, but they don't count).
God damnit, my phrase is missing an if. It's supposed to be "even IF you put luxuries cars more affordable". I understood what you had said.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:No, apologies if I was unclear--luxury cars are not more affordable than SUVs in the USA. Most SUVs are very much in the price-range which is affordable for the average consumer here.Colonel Olrik wrote: Even you put luxury cars more affordable (and I'll bet with you they're far more expensive here than in the US, so I completely agree with the idea), those factors won't just disappear.
For example, take a large American sedan (mine is a Mercury and weighs in at 4400 lbs curb weight) compared to an American SUV. If you're comparing one of those ridiculously ostentatious ultra-luxury Mercedes luxury cars to a Ford SUV, that's an apples-to-oranges comparison and you know it.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Well, the luxury car rating takes in a lot of cars which might not be purchased specifically for their size safety. What models are you specifically thinking of comparing?
