-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
I'm not gloating about a winning a collision, I'm just saying that I would rather be safer. And, you are incorrect when you say the majority of accidents are not of the Bumper-to-Bumper variety. The fact is, this is the most frequent type of accident. Side impacts are right behind. Roll overs and solo accidents are far behind. I know this. I investigate fraud for an ins. company and I see stats on this all the time. I can also tell you this, SUVS are safer in rollovers. I see them all the time in my work and I can honestly say that people fair much better inside an SUV in a rollover than in sedans or other traditional car designs. Side impacts? They are seem to fair better in this type of accident as well. People sit higher up and usually avoid the direct impact to their body from the other vehicle's bumper. This of course is assuming the other vehicle is not another SUV, Pickup or large truck. In general, SUVs, Pickups, etc, tend to have much less damage when in an accident. Of course you can always take the other side and say because of SUVs, other smaller vehicles receive more damage in general.
Bumper to bumper collisions are the most frequent type of accident, but not the majority. In a side impact, at least a passenger vehicle has mandated side impact protection beams in the door. SUVs aren't required to install them, and judging by the weight of the doors for the various SUVs I've ridden in and driven, I doubt they're there.
Also, SUVs are multiple times more likely to get into a rollover in the first place, and the mortality rate in a rollover is higher than a frontal or side collision. How they fare in rollovers is something I don't info on, but a friend of mine who used to work as an engineer at Nissan told me that the safety cage designs that are standard practice with passenger cars are far stronger and safer than what's typically designed into a truck or SUV. Also, the chassis certification requirements for passenger cars are stricter than for light trucks.
And with the rigid frame construction used on truck-based SUVs, much more of that blunt force gets transferred directly into the passenger cabin. Transferring that collision force away from the passenger cabin is whole reason why engineers started designing crumple zones and unit body construction into passenger cars over 30 years ago. And even with that rigid frame, the bumpers on those SUV will take on far more damage in a low speed impact than a passenger car will.
If maximum cargo hauling capacity does not need to be a design goal for a vehicle (and I doubt too many SUV owners will ever need something that can handle a three-ton+ load), then why saddle it down with all the weight, directional stability, and safety compromises that go along with that kind of design? Leaf spring suspensions and rigid axles date all the way back to the horse carriage era, I would expect a car to at least have technology that's more in line with the 20th century. Personally, I would rather drive a car that gives me more of a fighting chance at avoiding an accident in the first place or can give me those extra feet of reduced braking distance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
In my experience, I can tell you this. SUVs are not the problem some people make them out to be. A bigger problem is people being to distracted while they are driving. If people would stop talking on their cell phones, watching the navigation systems, fooling with the radio, eating and drinking while in their vehicles, we would have far far less accidents. When I used to work "normal" auto accidents I can say that at least 80% of the accidents involved some kind of driver inattention.
Banning cell phone use in vehicles would go much farther in terms of saving lives than banning SUVs. JSE
I'll agree with you on this point. The whole move towards in-dash navigation systems, DVD surround systems, internet connectivity, power ports for laptop computers, on top of the preexisting radio, make-up, dashboard dining, and cellphone distractions, scares me a lot more than any SUV ever will.
My problem with SUVs is that I simply can't stand how they drive. I mean, a station wagon gives me far better handling, visibility, and road feel than any SUV I've ever tried out. And I avoid them on the roads as well, since I can't see potential hazards as well whenever I'm around them, and I know from almost daily experience that they can't see me all that well either.
I've never said anything about banning SUVs, and would oppose any efforts to do so. If people want to put up with something that undriveable IMO on a daily basis, then they have my blessing. My main point has been to put them on an equal plane with passenger cars, since the rationale for regulating them as trucks has pretty much turned into a joke. Whether that means lowering passenger car standards or raising those for SUVs or eliminating them altogether, so be it.
-
That's what I want
Now to rezone the residential place for commercial parging:) And a new garage:) Wonder how a sub, many subs, would work in that :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
- Or the Exon Valdez and drive it down the road - .
No, no, not that. Too oily :) But it sure has a large fuel tank :)
-
I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.
Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.
Quote:
Although large vehicles mean more fuel consumption, more pollution, and more danger for drivers of smaller vehicles, trucks and buses used in economic activities provide benefits to society that outweigh these costs. Does the pleasure that people get from owning large SUV's outweigh the costs to people who don't own them?
Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?
Actually, that's the best idea I've heard today! :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
I guess I don't disagree that SUVs could be held to the same emissions standards as passenger cars, in fact, that should really be looked into. Whether you like it or not though, some people have a use for them. If you own a home, have a family, have stuff to haul around/tow, or all of the above, you know what I mean. One could argue that a truck makes more sense, but a truck doesn't always do it all. This day and age, it's all about finding the vehicle that will do it all - that's why SUVs sell so well. Sure many people who don't need them buy them, but the same could be said of trucks. So what are the options? Lower their emissions or make people fill out applications to make sure they actually need them? Forcing the same standards as passenger cars sounds more realistic - but even that sounds like a stretch.
Again, I personally would rather have a truck, but my mother-in-law's Durango has come in handy everytime we needed it (long trips, home depot, camping, home depot, dump runs, home depot, etc). A truck would have only worked out in half of the cases we used the SUV.
Well, that's assuming everyone who owns an SUV doesn't need one. How do you separate the people who use them to their full potential (carpooling, hauling, towing, etc) from those who could get by just as well with a passenger vehicle? You can't group everyone together - so then what? Start suing people individually for damages? I think people have good intentions and even some good points here, but many of the arguments just don't hold water. Fighting to ban public smoking is one thing, but trying to ban SUVs because they might "have an adverse affect on others"? Please. Why don't we just skip to the root of the problem and see about getting "stupidity" and "inconsideration of others" banned too?
Would you agree that driver's who don't need large vehicles should not be encouraged to buy them? If you do agree, do you know we have no Federal Government policy to discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles? In fact, Federal policy does just the opposite. See Swerd's post on the income tax deduction for SUV purchases up to $100,000, allowed to doctors, lawyers, and other self-employed workers.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
discourage the use of unnecessarily large vehicles?
Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."
While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.
I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.
JSE
-
okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.
What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?
It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.
What size house do you own?
Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?
Do you own a second home?
Do you keep your house clean?
What do you clean it with?
How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?
Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?
What crops do you plant in your garden?
How far do you drive to work?
How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?
(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )
(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)
-
why ban
Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenk
Just let the gas $ goes up to about $4.00 a gallon by adding more taxes, then there will be less SUV! Plus it will solve our deficit problem in no time :)
Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.
JSE
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Who determines what is a "unnecessarily large vehicle"? So, we should just ban or discourage vehicles that are "unnecessarily large" for the particular person buying it? I have an idea, let's just create another department within goverment who will go around interviewing each person who wants to buy a SUV to see if they really need it. I can see it now, "I'm sorry Mr. JSE, you don't need the Chevy Tahoe, you really need the Toyota Matrix. Granted, your knees will be jammed into the dash at all times, your head will be crushed into the roof and you will feel like your being crammed into a jar but hey, that's what we feel you need."
While we're at it, let's cut horsepower down in all vehicles as well. Does anyone really need 300 HP? Does anyone really need a car that can do 0-60mph in under 5 seconds. Oh, and what about the street racers. They convert primarily foreign cars into street racing KILLING MACHINES! Let's just be safe and ban cars made by Honda, Toyota, Mitts, Nissan, etc.
I hate to be harsh or rude, but GET OVER IT! Drive your small a$$ car and deal with it. It ain't gonna change! SUVs are never going to be banned. They may be held to the same rules in the furture but then it will be my choice if I want one.
JSE
You have misread me, but you aren't alone. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonefishin
okiemax, what's the maximum square footage that you feel should be allowed to a family of three? How about a family of four? or a single person living alone (perhaps it would be best if we had government "recommended" living laws) Maybe only allow those with heart conditions to own and run air conditioning in hot climates. Or better yet...require them to move to a cooler climate. If they choose not to move to a cooler climate (because of their heart conditions) then their government funded health insurance would be denied.
What size home do you feel is in excess of living comfortably?
It's easy enough to discuss the ramifications of owning/building/maintaining a large home. So what size is too big? Let's think about the trees used to produce the lumber...the toxins used to make and clean the various chemicals used to make the building materials...the coal or nuclear power used to produce the electricity for the materials to be built to build the house of excess...and the power used to heat/cool the "too large home"...the oils used to make the building materials...the oils burnt up while workers at each individual factory use while driving to and from their jobs...to make the materials. The homes that they live in. Not to mention that union laborers are usually paid better than non union workers...so it's very possible that the workers at the factories, where your getting your building supplies from, are also living in excess.
What size house do you own?
Do you own a furnace or air conditioner? Do you use them?
Do you own a second home?
Do you keep your house clean?
What do you clean it with?
How many (and what type) of vehicles do you own?
Do you use fertilizers on your lawn shrubs or garden?
What crops do you plant in your garden?
How far do you drive to work?
How many miles do you put on your vehicles (all) each year?
(I'd be willing to bet that your burning more fuel per year than my family (full size truck and mini-van). We actually moved close to where we work. Would you suggest that a family moves closer to their employment to save on the amount of fuel used per year? )
(when talking about fuel usage) Isn't that what it really comes down... not so much how much fuel a vehicle uses...but how much fuel the owner requires that vehicle to use per year)
I think my base post may have led you to believe I am in favor of banning SUVs. I have never said SUVs should be banned. I believe the use of unneccesarily large vehicles should be discouraged. I will make an addition to the base post to clarify things.
-
I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche. A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past. Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.
I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?
Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSE
Maybe it's just the end of the day and my mind in fried but, Huh? Are you talking about the tax breaks being done away with? Please clarify how this will help the deficit if other than SUV tax reform.
JSE
That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. Though there is a bit of a difference with our metric system more or less litres fill a gallon or something can't recall off hand.
So he is saying if we add $3.00 a litre in tax then SUV owners will help us pay for social programs or highway construction etc. I don't necessarily mind such a proposition because the owner of said vehicle STILL has the choice as to what he or she can buy. Butt after it costs more in gas than the lease payment they may decide to make another purchase. It's like a SIN tax. Smoking here is subject to government taxes - the government claims that the HIGH cost of medical care and cancer should be paid by smokers who know it's bad but do it anyway so that's fine you can if you want to but bloody hell you are going to pay through the nose for those smokes. Alcohol tax pay to to scoop up drunk drivers and victims from the highways and AA support.
The car population and oil reserves are in an inverse near exponential rate which some suggest could be gone as early as 2050. I was taking an Environmental science course last semester which was interesting. Of course there is debate on these numbers but some arguemnts that we're ok speak of Canada's supply of oil in the tndra or some such nonsense which cannot be feasibly accessed so I don't buy those oil company we're ok nonsense.
I'm not a big Green Peacer by any stretch but each person does leave a foot print on this planet - and where possible it would be nice if we could take care to at least TRY and do a bit to lessen that impact. It's not practical for everyone to become a tree hugging Vegan - it would probably destroy the economy. But if buyers were united the folks at GM and Ford and Honda etc could certainly build Hybrid SUV's that get 80Mpg - they don't because the demand isn't there - and the oil suppliers would not make as much profit.
I don't think you can ban such things - people need cargo vehicles. My folks have a Kia Sedona which is horrible on gas but it was the cheapest vehichle that could also pull a tent trailer - they're retired and that's what they do. They used to have a V10 Dodge Ram and a big fifth wheel - people learn to downsize and it's not the end of the world.
We've all got it to easy in cushy ol North America - and the mentality of screw everyone and everything it's my right because it's written in a constitution 200 years ago is a cop out. I don't rely on a 200 year oild Doctor for my surgery or to build me a stereo so why do people continually site the constitution - for heaven sake let's THINK in modern times. But then hay people rely on the Bible for everything as well - so what am I thinking,.
-
Better late than never:
Quote:
Originally Posted by okiemax
I'm not for banning SUVs, but the title of my base post may have suggested I favor banning. I am for government policies that discourage people from using motor vehicles that are larger than they need. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
Okie, let me tell you what I'm in favor of: The government keeping their damn hands off my freedom of choice. Define "unnecessarily large." While your at it, why don't you define "art" vs. "pornography" too, or would rather commence with the book burnings? "No brainer"...amazing, that's what I was thinking too!
Quote:
While I don't favor a ban, I detest large SUVs. But when I analyze my feelings, I realize it is the drivers of large SUVs that anger me. There were always drivers who were rude, inconsiderate, or incompetent, but driving a big high-profile vehicle seems to make their behavior even worse. A jerk tailgating me with a Lincoln Navigator is more of a menace than a jerk doing it with a Porsche.
Are you sure it was the tailgating Navigator that got you flustered or the maniac in the Porsche that just cut in front of you going 30mph faster then traffic?
Quote:
A driver who needs two attempts just to get a small car parked properly may need four or five with a large SUV, while others are waiting to get past.
Two attempts?! Learn how to drive. I feel sorry for the wife of anybody that can't get their car in on one try. Seriously, if you f*#k like you park, you'll never get it in.
Quote:
Cell phone use while driving(bad enough in a small car) adds to the problems.
Driving an suv and talking while driving are completely unrelated. Personally, I detest people talking on cell phones while driving. Your phone came with a free ear bud, use it and keep both hands on the wheel. While they're at it, they can stop putting on their make-up, reading the paper, putting creme in their coffee, and unwrapping their taco. Until cars drive themselves (coming soon to a highway near you), the lugnut behind the wheel is in charge. Act like it.
Quote:
I'm sure many people are good at rationalizing their need for a large SUV. "I need it for those times I carry heavy cargo and large numbers of passengers over dirt roads and across fields and creeks." Yea sure, and how freqently is that? You sure it's not for image?
I'm quite sure. In fact, I'm so damn good looking I could drive a Hyundai and still be better looking than Pierce Brosnan. Lemme ask you a question as you deem yourself the omniscient one, how exactly would you like me to tow my boat with my sports car? I know it carves thru mountain passes like Woochifer wants it to, but with a 20' boat and trailer, umm not so much. Ya know, another problem is squeezing the car seats and related kid gear into the convertible and still have room for luggage, strollers, portable cribs, beach chairs, etc.. But you're right, I can fit all that into a Prius and I'm sure the electric motor won't have a problem pulling it up Boyd Grade. What was I thinking!!! That's me, Topspeed the planet killer and most disrespectful human on the face of mother Earth.
Quote:
Don't get me wrong. If I lived in rural Alaska, I would consider buying one of the things. But I think large SUVs for the most part are a case of social responsibilty and practicality taking a back seat to fashion.
That's called freedom of choice. If you don't like it, there are any number of countries that I'm sure would be more to your liking. I hear Turkey is nice...North Korea should be beautiful this time of year. In the mean time, you can keep your big government to your self.
Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by topspeed
Now if y'all excuse me, I'm going to go run over an endangered plant species in my SUV (maybe twice so I can use more gas), go eat an 18oz Porterhouse, and maybe take up smoking just for the helluva it.
Hey ts -
I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you. :)
-
Rotflmao!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woochifer
Hey ts -
I think you need to ease up on this low carb thing! Go ahead and eat some pasta, and maybe your local Toyota dealer can bump you up to the top of the waiting list for that Prius you were eyeballing before Mr. Atkins got a hold of you. :)
Atkins can kiss my round ass! I'm in "The Zone" baby! ;)
-
RGA posted "That poster might be Canadian. in Canada the gas is taxed by the federal and possibly the provincial governent which is basically 60% of the price of gas here. We pay 96.5-99.5cents CDN right now per litre. ..........."
3.8 litre = 1 gallon, so 96.5-99.5cents CDN averages 3.72 CDN/gal or US$2.70/gal .... somewhat more than USA
UK ran 79 pence/liter or about $5.51/gal.......... I saw VERY FEW SUV in UK. Heck, I had a harrowing time fitting a Montero into a Cardiff 6-floor parking building........
-
Because fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource and burning them pollutes the air, discouraging their needless use is a no-brainer. What is needless use? I say put a use tax on gas guzzlers and let the drivers of these vehicles decide. A tax would be fair. Those who are not interested in conservation and clean air would still have the freedom to drive road hogs(albeit not as cheaply) and the rest of us, including future generations, would receive some compensation for this behaviour.
Yes, under my plan to make the world a better place, everyone would get something. Except topspeed, who probably should be tied in a chair and force-fed tofu until he promises to change his ways.
-
I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan
I'm rather surprised there aren't hybrid boats out yet or ones that take full advantage of solar panaling in addition to either sails or gas/desiel engines for power. Seems the boat market is a little slow to catch on.
Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...
Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by topspeed
Ain't that the truth! It was only through local guidelines mandating 4 stroke PWC's that forced the manufacturers to start really innovating on the 4 stroke side. I don't see hybrid boats ever coming to market simply because their function would be lost on the way boats work. In cars, under light loads the electric motor powers the car with the combustion engine only coming online when extra power is need, such as hard acceleration, passing, steep grades, etc. or to recharge the batteries. With boats, particularly ski boats, you just nail the sucker right out of the blocks which would bypass the electric motor alltogether. Still, electric motors are suppossed to have tons of torque so you never know...
Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy? Okie, congrats on making your inability to recognize satire so painfully obvious.
Topspeed, you got me confused with this satire thing. I don't know what to make of your following statement: "Taxes being applied as a detriment/penalty, huh? Am I the only one that sees a problem with this philosophy?" Is that intended as satire? I'm going to guess it's not, and answer straight.
Whether you like it or not, tax has been an instrument of public policy for centuries and likely will continue to be used that way. It's the carrot/stick approach.Tax incentives for buying hybrid cars are an example of the former, and the so-called "sin tax" on alcohol and tobacco is an example of the latter.
I'm sorry I overlooked the satire in your other post. Perhaps it was a case of subtlity concealing wit. Good satire ain't easy to do, but don't give up. Now that I know what you are up to, I'll look forward to your future efforts.
|