Author
|
Topic: Taxing 4x4s of the road
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836
|
posted 07 July 2004 05:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cougyr: The Hummer? Well, for a starter, it's too big, too clumsy.
Isn't the military version armoured? Military Hummer. [ 07 July 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]
From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336
|
posted 07 July 2004 11:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by paxamillion: Isn't the military version armoured?
A few are, but most aren't. One of the complaints out of Iraq is that not enough Hummers have armour. GI Ingenuity quote: To keep from absorbing excess shrapnel, our troops drove their Hummers carefully and at a good distance behind the tanks ands M113 armored personnel carriers. To protect essential body parts, such as the family jewels, most of the thin-skinned vehicle crews sat on extra flak jackets. Sandbags covered the vehicle floors despite the warnings by the automotive experts that the extra weight would reduce the Hummer transmission's lifespan. We also reinforced the Hummers' plastic side doors (about as thick as a Glad trash bag), with additional, older-type flak jackets. It didn't look very pretty, but it worked and eased the mind.
So, again, I wonder what the Army bought those things for.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962
|
posted 08 July 2004 06:54 AM
Well, they bought them to replace the Jeep, but also to replace (checks US Army page) two different ambulances, something called the Mule (I'm betting a tow-truck) and something called, improbably, the Gamma Goat. So it provides one vehicle that can be configured for multiple roles, while maintaining a single store of parts. Kind of the same idea as the new aircraft they're rolling out: have one tool that does multiple jobs. That being said, in order to do all those various roles, the Hummer has to be bigger, with a bigger engine than the old Jeep. So it's a Jack of all trades, master of none situation. And since it's too big and bulky to be a good (optimum?) Jeep, we get soldiers shot up from it being a bigger target, and more gas being burned on the roads back in the good old US of A. Here's the official military stats: (check out that horsepower!)
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dr Gas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4410
|
posted 09 July 2004 01:01 AM
The Jeep was designed in the 1940's and is unsafe on some terrain and some speeds. The civilian version (CJ and YJ) had some of the same problems until the latest Jeep (TJ) had a new suspension design.The Hummer has a lot of technical improvements that make it quite good off road (low overhangs, adjustable tire pressure and better locking differentials). I don't think an extra tax would work because people who can afford an expensive vehicle can afford to pay the tax. If they use the vehicle for work they get to write off part of the tax too. The bottom line is people are going to spend their money on whatever they think they need. A jetski, a 4000 square foot home, a plane ticket to China, whatever. If these vehicles are for sale in Canada legally then some people will buy them. If they fall through some Emission regulation loophole, it's up to the government have the guts to work that out with the automakers. Buying a vehicle is a personal choice that can have an impact on society, but so are alot of other daily choices. If you want to limit choices in one area it opens the door to limits in other areas. What if we put a extra tax on disposeable diapers to cover their proper disposal, like the extra tax on new car tires?
From: Maritmes | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641
|
posted 09 July 2004 06:32 AM
quote: Originally posted by Dr Gas:
I don't think an extra tax would work because people who can afford an expensive vehicle can afford to pay the tax. If they use the vehicle for work they get to write off part of the tax too.Buying a vehicle is a personal choice that can have an impact on society, but so are alot of other daily choices. If you want to limit choices in one area it opens the door to limits in other areas. What if we put a extra tax on disposeable diapers to cover their proper disposal, like the extra tax on new car tires?
If there is an alternative which produces a smaller impact on the environment and is lees disruptive to society as a whole, then there should be a 'luxury' or 'polluting' tax on the item,, whatever it is.
It doesn't even have to be in the form of a flat or general tax, which leaves no incentive for improvements. For example the German system taxes the displacement of the engine, thus allowing innovative designs which can get greater efficiency and power out of smaller engines, without being penalised. Similarly, they also mandate that all tyres, and the majority of car parts be recycled by the company which produces them! (the same is true for household appliances) This means that innovative design is encouraged, and in the end the entire life cycle of the product is optimised! I used to own a 2 cylinder, 34 hp car which did 100km to 6 litres at 120 kmph, could drive anywhere a 4x4 could (very low 1st gear, unique suspension) and was originally desinged in the 30-40's! (mine was a 1972). Fords today are still doing 30 miles to the gallon, just as the model-T did in the 1920's--> there is no excuse for this!
From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reverend Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6377
|
posted 09 July 2004 02:00 PM
quote: What's a carpet doing on the floor of a pickup?
Well, I can't speak for eveyone, but mine's rotting. I have two trucks. 1) A 1980 GMC Crew Cab 3/4 ton. I bought when I was contracting and put in a used 305 motor. It's an old Manitoba Highways vehicle. It's sitting in the driveway right now, broken and unlicensed. I might put a motor in it one day though because trucks that will haul that kind of weight are so expensive now and because of the Manitoba safety laws regarding rust. If somebody were to come up with a fuel cell that could be bolted to a Chevy transmission, I'd certainly consider it, so would a lot of people. (hint to all you inventors out there ) 2) A 1982 Dodge 1/2 ton with a slant 6. It has no power on the highway, but it gets better mileage in the city than our 1994 Oldsmobile. I often have to haul stuff for work, so I need a truck about three days a week. It also carries our camperette quite handily as long as you don't have a fetish for getting into fourth gear. The urbanisation of trucks is brutal though. It's soften the vehicles while pushing the price up. In 1986 my dad bought a new GMC truck. Fairly heavy duty, 305 V-8, automatic transmission, no other options except for the a.m. radio and a cloth seat (no vinyl seats on the lot). It cost $12,000. In 2004 my step-mother went looking for a possible replacement. $30,000 (on sale as a demo) and loaded with options that won't last long if the truck is used for work. My dad, who has early onset Alzheimers but still manages to putter around the farm, took one look and said, "I can't even change the oil in that." (Actually it took him a lot longer to say it, but that was the gist) The truck stayed on the lot. We've reached the point where people who actually need trucks can't get them. If only the people who needed them bought them, there would be much less pollution, trucks would be cheaper, and innovation would go into making them better for work.
From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 09 July 2004 06:58 PM
I think we shouldn't use the tax system for anything but the running of government.But then, I'm a cult of one on that subject. But maybe I can be swayed. How about a "Tommy Tax": a tax on people who do things that happen to piss me off? Everyone else seems to get to tax me on that basis, when's my turn? (mutters) ...freakin social engineers.....
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 12 July 2004 07:33 AM
Remember....well, I suppose most don't, because even I'm not old enough to remember steam locomotives, but for the sake of argument... remember steam locomotives?They weren't taxed off the rails. Something came along to replace them. Once the Diesel-Electric locomotive proved to be reliable, steam locomotives were gone in the wink of an eye. Even though the new Diesel-Electric locomotives were a leap and a bound cleaner than the engine it replaced, the impetus for the fast change over was economics. The Diesel-Electric had fewer moving parts (steam locomotives required a lot of maintenance) and a longer range. (steam locomotives had to stop frequently for water) When we look at today's SUV, and automobiles in general, what we are looking at is a Rube Goldberg Machine. With all the environmental and fuel economy gadgets on them, and on board computers that are designed in part for better servicing, but also to bind you to the dealership, these vehicles have fallen over the brink of practicle utility. I would suggest that if we are going to monkey with the tax system, it should be to create incentives for fuel cell or electric technology. We will embrace that new technology not because it's good for the environment and our health, but because it will eventually prove to be a better machine than the ones we are currently using. And the cars and SUV's will be off the road faster than you can say "steam locomotive".
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiretap
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6464
|
posted 13 July 2004 12:30 AM
Quote from Tommy "They weren't taxed off the rails. Something came along to replace them. Once the Diesel-Electric locomotive proved to be reliable, steam locomotives were gone in the wink of an eye."I do agree with this statement somewhat. Higher taxes likely aren't the answer, and there are numerous examples of technology being superseded. However, this has not been happening with the automobile. Technology development has not lead to an overall decrease in fuel consumption. For one thing, few new vehicles get better fuel economy in 2004 than their predecessors. You can't beat the physics of moving 1500 kg at 60 kph. For example (from www.fueleconomy.gov) 1985 Ford F150 4WD 6Cyl 4.9L manual trans - 17 mpg 2004 Ford F150 4WD 6Cyl 4.2L manual trans - 15 mpg For another, the 90s era of green enlightenment gave us a solid consumer base for heavy and powerful vehicle. Hockey parents started recycling their newspapers, and at the same time, retired their functional family K-car and bought themselves a nice GMC Yukon to get around. The irony gets very thick at times. Improved recyclability of new cars is a positive step to reducing the energy cost of the lifecycle of a vehicle. But even this falls short because the number of vehicles being manufactured and sold annually is always increasing. This means that we are making long term deposits into a "recyclable materials" bank faster than we are making withdrawls. Recycling is not free as well. It is a polluting energy consuming process. Hybrid cars have been touted as the environmentally friendly option for the socially concious vehicle owner. Do not be fooled! While these gas/electric vehicles do have fuel economy on par with diesel cars (4 to 5 L / 100km), they still require $6-8K worth of batteries, about a tonne of steel and various plastics, and a very significant amount of energy to build (rule of thumb is the cars weight in gasoline equivalents). Fuel cell vehicles face the same problems. Well, what to do if technology cannot provide us with an ideal solution? To me, it is clear that technology cannot take us where we need to go. There will never be a `clean` automobile. However,a good place to start would be to drive a well built, fuel efficient vehicle (something that is going to run 400+K), and drive it sparingly. By doing this alone, we can (hopefully) buy some extra time to reduce our dependency on the automobile. And patiently wait while ground breaking technologies such as the bicycle and the electric streetcar make their move on the personal automobile.... [ 13 July 2004: Message edited by: Wiretap ]
From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 13 July 2004 02:13 AM
quote: They weren't taxed off the rails. Something came along to replace them. Once the Diesel-Electric locomotive proved to be reliable, steam locomotives were gone in the wink of an eye.Even though the new Diesel-Electric locomotives were a leap and a bound cleaner than the engine it replaced, the impetus for the fast change over was economics. The Diesel-Electric had fewer moving parts (steam locomotives required a lot of maintenance) and a longer range. (steam locomotives had to stop frequently for water)
Isn't that special. Science and technology will always save us from ourselves. There is only one tiny problem. Back then, they had a superior fuel (diesel) to replace coal. What do we have to replace fossil fuels? Hyrdogen isn't an answer - it's only a way of storing energy. There are no huge deposits of hydrogen unless you think you might pipe it in from the sun. Solar might be an answer but we're years or perhaps decades from developing it on a scale to replace fossil fuels. Ditto for wind or anything else. Meanwhile back at the ranch, scientists are predicting that the peak production of oil is just around the corner. But hey, let's not let anything as petty as the prospect of huge economic dislocation and famine get in the way of selfish oafs who feel the need to drive 3 ton behemoths around town.
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 13 July 2004 07:39 AM
And this is why I'm against monkeying with the tax system in the first place. I think science and technology stands a good chance of saving us from ourselves, given the track record. Considering the worst of the pollution produced by automobiles is on the ground in large urban centers, electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, while not perfect are a huge step in the right direction. And, sure and electric battery needs replacement from time to time, the maintainance pales in comparason to the maintenance needs of the infernal combustion engine. And that's how this technology has to be sold to people. No more starting motors giving out in the middle of the winter, no more mufflers to replace, etc.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 13 July 2004 10:57 AM
quote: I think science and technology stands a good chance of saving us from ourselves, given the track record.
God help us all. And of course, science is God. No matter what we do, if we pray hard enough, our God will save us. quote: And this is why I'm against monkeying with the tax system in the first place.
Tax increases? God forbid!
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ReeferMadness
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2743
|
posted 13 July 2004 11:39 PM
quote: Oh piss off. Bicycles and street cars and even your tenis shoes are a product of science and technology, as well as the knowledge we currently posses about the green house effect. So yes, science and technology will end up saving us one way or another, unless of course, we adopt a ludite, post modernist attitude and look for answers from crystal balls and other hokum.
Science is great. It's amazing. It's cool. But it isn't the answer to all of our problems. Science also kills people. Everything that can be used for good can be used for evil. Even things used for good can have huge bad unintended effects. The greater the power of the technology we tap into, the greater the consequence of the unintended effects. Science without discipline and control over how it's used can be positively dangerous. But what I find really dangerous are people who accept on faith that it really doesn't matter what we do to ourselves because we're so clever that we'll be able to come up with some science to fix it all. In the face of things that can't be controlled faith, whether it be in people, science, or God, is understandable and helps people cope. But when we have situations where we can actually affect the outcome, ignoring a logical course of action and expressing faith in science is irrational and dangerous. So, you piss off. Or at least learn to think!
From: Way out there | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641
|
posted 14 July 2004 08:13 AM
quote: Originally posted by Tommy_Paine: And this is why I'm against monkeying with the tax system in the first place. I think science and technology stands a good chance of saving us from ourselves, given the track record. Considering the worst of the pollution produced by automobiles is on the ground in large urban centers, electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, while not perfect are a huge step in the right direction. And, sure and electric battery needs replacement from time to time, the maintainance pales in comparason to the maintenance needs of the infernal combustion engine. And that's how this technology has to be sold to people. No more starting motors giving out in the middle of the winter, no more mufflers to replace, etc.
Two Points: 1) One does not necessarily have to monkey with the 'after production' tax, which allows loopholes,etc. One could, as I stated earlier, have a sliding tax on engine displacement, that is incorporated at production time. 2) Batteries do in fact have some seriously toxic components, and their performance varies with temperature...leading to possible problems in cold and humid climates (nothing that can't be partially solved by good design, but this increases cost and maintenance). A stop-gap measure would be to use Bio-diesels in existing diesel engines; which produces none of the sulfides/ates, nitrous oxides, heavy metals, etc of refined diesels.
From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 14 July 2004 08:35 AM
Typically though, these kinds of taxes end up being paid by a select group of people. Fleet sales, "company cars" can all be deducted as a "business expense".One of the things that hurts us on this issue is the fact that people have always attached status to thier mode of transportation, whether it be a horse, a carriage or automobile. Or skate boards and roller blades for that matter. I don't know how we get around that. We use electric lift trucks at work. They seem to do okay for what they do. They don't go fast, but they do wiegh about four tons empty, and run some heavy duty hydraulics on top of that. They run eight hours on a charge. Already, I think the technology is there to suit what we do with our gas vehicles in the main. That is, get one or two people to work and do the grocery shopping. Whatever the power source, I envision a change over where people at first buy such a vehicle in addition to the Rube Golberg Machine they are currently driving, relegating the old vehicle for out of town excursions, etc. To make that happen, perhaps subsidies would work better than tax disincentives.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372
|
posted 14 July 2004 04:47 PM
Modern trucks are a joke. In a job I used to have (treeplanting foreman), I would pick up a shiny new 'heavy duty' pickup in late April, drive it on backroads and offroad for the next 4 months, and return a shiny, clean wreck in August. (never buy a used 4x4 truck, ever, even if it has low mileage).I am an extremely cautious driver (backroads will do that to you after awhile). When I see truck commercials with wheels bouncing through potholes, and trucks racing over rockpiles, I can only laugh. People actually pay tens of thousands of dollars for truck shaped tupperware that makes them feel like hard workin' folks. SUVs are beyond jokes for real backroad/backcountry use. Most of them have car frames and short wheelbases. THey wouldn't last a week in any strenuous use.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 15 July 2004 08:03 AM
I know. I've been saying to truck enthusiasts at work that there should be a niche market opening up for a small manufacturer to make REAL trucks, ones that could be used on construction sites and farms.My brother just bought a brand new Ford F-150. Ford responded to consumer demand by creating a larger back seat passenger compartment at the expense of the box. You might be able to carry a sheet of plywood in one-- with the tailgate down. It suits him though. It does have the towing capacity that he needs for his trailer, and he's beyond that point in life where you are hauling furniture and building supplies. To top it off, many truck manufacturers are offering aluminum wheels as standard equipment. Not what you'd call very robust. Even the steel wheels are switching to a "full face" style, which is being driven by aesthetics and not practicality. We've been making these were I work and I can't-- if a truck is supposed to be a robust work/off road vehicle-- see what real advantage this has. It's the marketing scam of the century. Ford, GM, Chrysler et al have convinced people they need these things when the vast majority of their vehicle needs could be serviced by an old "Sunbeam".
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wiretap
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6464
|
posted 16 July 2004 04:38 AM
quote: SUVs are already fairly heavily taxed both by the gasoline taxes they pay (we all know 110% of the gas price is taxes, it says so on the pump), not to mention PST and GST.
Since wild arguments seem to be the theme here, let us assume that ALL of the price of fuel is tax. Let us assume that we are not putting money into George Bush's war-chest. Let us assume that we are not funding the invasion of Iraq, or supporting the anti-Kyoto lobbyists through the profits of American oil companies. Let us assume that we pay 85 cents of pure tax per litre in the new and crazy Canada. Let us assume in this case that the SUV driver puts on 12K km per year (only one suburb away from work) and gets a fuel mileage of 15L/100km (it's an Explorer, not a Hummer). At .85 per litre of pure taxes, this amounts to around $1500 per year. I challenge you and your neighbours to build and maintain the roads and parking in your neighbourhood for $1500 per SUV and $1000 per car. We won't get into additional costs such as highways, bridges, streetlights, healthcare, emergency road services, loss of habitat, inefficient city design, noise, auto industry subsidies, traffic law enforcement...can I stop now? The price that we pay for people to drive their vehicles is far higher than the price of gas.
From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wiretap
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6464
|
posted 16 July 2004 05:27 AM
quote: Whatever the power source, I envision a change over where people at first buy such a vehicle in addition to the Rube Golberg Machine they are currently driving, relegating the old vehicle for out of town excursions, etc.
There is one problem with this solution. Instead of decreasing our reliance on the automobile, this would lead to a massive public aquisition of some sort of super vehicle (that defies the laws of physics by moving around without consuming energy and has no mass and therefore can be manufactured with no raw materials). Do not be fooled by the mystique of gas/electrics or fuel cell vehicles. Just imagine what our cities will be like in the not so distant future when the number of cars on the road double or triple. Even if they are pumping sweet sunshine out the tailpipe, they will put the choke on us one way or another. I think we all agree that SUVs are an abomination, and the only point I have to add is that smallers vehicles are a lesser abomination, but an abomination nonetheless. Cheerios
[ 16 July 2004: Message edited by: Wiretap ]
From: Burnaby BC | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 04 August 2004 09:55 AM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: I love my truck! I think that larger vehicles are also safer in terms of a collision. I don't want to be in a toyota echo when i get hit at 120.
Often, but not always. Trucks and SUVs are exempt from some of the safety laws that cover passenger cars, or at least used to be. Having said that, I'd be reluctant to buy, say, a Sprint. I don't see a point in buying a car that's only really safe to use in the city, since if I'm not going to be driving on the highways then I probably don't need a car at all. [ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776
|
posted 04 August 2004 11:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by Hailey: I love my truck! I think that larger vehicles are also safer in terms of a collision. I don't want to be in a toyota echo when i get hit at 120.
quote: The height and width of the typical SUV make it hard for car drivers behind it to see the road ahead, increasing the chance that they will be unable to avoid a crash, especially a multivehicle pileup. The stiff, trucklike underbody of an SUV does little to absorb the force of collisions with trees and other roadside objects. Its size increases traffic congestion, because car drivers tend to give sport utility vehicles a lot of room, so fewer vehicles can get through each green light at an intersection. Most of the nation's roadside guardrails were built for low-riding cars, and may flip an SUV on impact instead of deflecting it safely back into its lane of traffic. The trucklike brakes and suspensions of SUVs mean that their stopping distances are longer than for a family car, making it less likely that an SUV driver will be able to stop before hitting a car. And when SUVs do hit pedestrians, they strike them high on the body, inflicting worse injuries than cars, which have low bumpers that flip pedestrians onto the relatively soft hood.For all their deadliness to other motorists, SUVs are no safer than cars for their own occupants. Indeed, they are less safe. The occupant death rate per million SUVs is actually 6 percent higher than the occupant death rate per million cars. The biggest SUVs, which pose the greatest hazards to other motorists, have an 8 percent higher death rate for their occupants than minivans and the larger midsize cars like the Ford Taurus and Pontiac Grand Prix.{BN1} How is this possible? SUV occupants simply die differently, being much more likely than car occupants to die in rollovers, as well as being much more likely to send other drivers to the grave.
"High and Mighty" excerpt Big and Bad. [ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: black_dog ] [ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: black_dog ]
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 04 August 2004 12:13 PM
quote: I love my truck!
Because you need it for the farm?? Because you need it to haul drywall?? Because you need it to haul bags of cement?? Because you need it to drive your friends to WEM? Because it's the truck Jesus would drive? Vaccuous is the word which comes to mind. How did public health and safety, and the environment become irrelevant considerations when it comes to a consumer product? You cannot buy DDT anymore, but you want a Escalade? No problem. Something is definately messed up here. There is a simple solution. The government of Canada says to the automakers "You will build a zero emmissions vehicle. It will weigh no more than this many kilos. It will not be a curiosity nor a PR stunt. It can look like whatever you want, and have as many cupholders as you wish, but it will not be fossil-fueled. If you refuse, you cannot sell your vehicles in this country anymore, or your vehicles will be subject to an asshole tax". It wouldn't be that hard for the automakers, considering they have had the necessary technology for decades, yet refuse to implement them out of greed and cowardice. They just need a little regulatory push, like they needed with seatbelts. BTW, auto batteries are probably the most recycled products. Manufactures need the lead for new batteries, and what is easier (and more economic) than taking it from old ones? That is why you turn in your core at Canadian tire.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
abnormal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1245
|
posted 04 August 2004 07:10 PM
By far the largest number of motor vehicle deaths are occupants of passenger vehicles including cars, the popular passenger vans often referred to as minivans, pickups, SUVs, and cargo/large passenger vans. The likelihood of crash death varies markedly among these vehicle types according to size. Small/light vehicles have less structure and size to absorb crash energy, so more injurious forces can reach their occupants in crashes. People in lighter vehicles are at a disadvantage in collisions with heavier vehicles. Pickups and SUVs are proportionally more likely than cars to be in fatal single-vehicle crashes, especially rollovers. However, pickups and SUVs generally are heavier than cars, so occupant deaths are less likely to occur in multiple-vehicle crashes.In 2002, occupant deaths per million registered passenger vehicles 1-3 years old are as follows: All Cars -- 124 All Pickups -- 161 All SUV's -- 120 All passenger vehicles -- 130 So SUV's and cars seem to be about the same with SUV's having a slight edge. If you restrict the stats to driver deaths you get: All Cars -- 83 All Pickups -- 122 All SUV's -- 75 All passenger vehicles -- 88 Again, SUV's seem to be ahead. Just not my day to get links working right. [ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: abnormal ] [ 04 August 2004: Message edited by: abnormal ]
From: far, far away | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336
|
posted 05 August 2004 12:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by BlueGreen: Further on the topic of 'bigger is safer' with cars, we also have to include the issue of Risk Homeostasis, which basically means that if you perceive less risk, you will eventually compensate for it, bringing up your overall risk level.
BlueGreen, that's an interesting subject. There is a reality to Risk Homeostasis, but I think there's more to it. I think that most people dissociate themselves from risk. Just watch people driving on a freeway, drinking their sodas, eating their burgers, yakking on their cell phones, turning around to talk to their passengers in the back seat, etc. I even saw some idiot doing a crossword, at 90+, with his paper up on the steering wheel; and several others reading books. And lately, other idiots have been watching movies while driving. These people aren't balancing the risk; they are unconscious of risk. Check with any safety expert at any industrial installation, or just hang around any railroad crossing. People do some incredibly stupid things. See The Darwin Awards for real stupidity. I really don't believe that most people actually perceive risk, because they don't understand the world around themselves; and choose not to.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gula
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6474
|
posted 20 August 2004 02:45 PM
One more reason to not just tax them off the road but off the planet:From the Independent: 'Toyota-isation' is latest global threat as desert dust storms spread By Michael McCarthy, Environment Editor 20 August 2004 There is an environmental problem that is just beginning to be recognised as being of global significance: "Toyota-isation".
The surfaces of deserts are being broken up by four-wheel drive vehicles such as the Toyota Land Cruiser, the Japanese version of the Land Rover and a great favourite with drivers in the Sahel, the dry states to the south of the Sahara, as well as many other challenging places http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=553288
From: Montréal | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
grrril
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4050
|
posted 24 August 2004 12:23 AM
I once owned owned a Jeep 4x4. I live in a remote mountainous region with few services and have a large extended family to "taxi" around. The weather conditions were extremely volatile. Government cutbacks meant you were on your own most of the time. Shift on the fly 4 wheel probably meant the difference between life and death. Last year without 4-wheel drive we wouldn't have left home without a vehicle for over a month. Everyone who drives a 4 wheel drive isn't a total moron. Some use it for what it was designed for. There are an awfull number of current 4-wheel drivers who are arrogant, pretentious assholes just as there are minivan, car and truck drivers who are arrogant, pretentious assholes who pollute in many other ways. For the most part SUV's in the city are ridiculous. We now own one fuel-efficent small car and one small 4x4 truck which we alternate depending on the season. We pitched our old gas powered lawn mower which probably polluted more than any vehicle and now use a hand pushed mower. We recycle, consume little, grow lots of our food, buy locally, don't travel much, have a tree lot and try to do what we can. It's far from perfect but we do what we can.
From: pinkoville | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Dr Gas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4410
|
posted 27 August 2004 12:30 AM
quote: BTW, auto batteries are probably the most recycled products. Manufactures need the lead for new batteries, and what is easier (and more economic) than taking it from old ones? That is why you turn in your core at Canadian tire.
Just an idea but I think the vehicles themselves are recycled on a larger scale than the batteries. There is plenty of lead available now since they stopped putting it in gasoline.
From: Maritmes | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 27 August 2004 02:07 PM
As far as I can make out, battery-powered vehicles, hydrogen-powered vehicles and a few other options are all just electric vehicles with different kinds of power storage.I'm in favour of electric vehicles. It pains me to say this, but hydrogen as a power storage device doesn't turn my crank. Batteries aren't that great either. In terms of current feasibility, cost, environmental impact, and level of decentralization my favourite currently is simple compressed air. There's an outfit in France supposed to be starting to manufacture cheap compressed-air powered cars, although there seem to be delays. But it's a nice idea--simple, direct, clean. You don't need toxic, expensive batteries which need replacing fairly frequently (although to be fair I understand they recycle them very effectively). You don't need some central hydrogen distributor. You just need a compressor thingie which can run off house current. So you can recharge like with batteries, but you don't actually need the batteries themselves. And it's a lot more nonpolluting than hydrogen made from natural gas! And probably more energy efficient than hydrogen made any other way. Longer term, I have a near-irrational fondness for flywheels.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|